Quality of reporting in 41 randomized controlled clinical trials of Chinese medicine for cancer pain

Abstract

AIM: To highlight the importance and necessity of quality assurance in clinical trial reporting by analyzing 41 papers on of Chinese medicine for cancer pain. METHODS: A search for clinical trial reports published from 1986 to 2006 on the effects, mechanisms, safety and application of Chinese herbal medicine in cancer pain management was conducted using the CBM, Chinese Medical Current Contents (CMCC) and Weipu (available since 1989) databases in Chinese, and PubMed and EMBASE in English. We evaluated the methodological quality of the articles, following the guidelines set forth in Levels of Evidence of Human Studies of Cancer in Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Herbal Medicine Interventions by Gagnier et al. RESULTS: Some research information was insufficiently reported, including methods of randomization, inclusion and exclusion criteria, outcome measurements, blinding and concealment, quality control and quality assurance of herbal preparations, and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Two crucial elements of high quality scientific reporting are the provision of sufficient research information and the transparency of research methodology. Insufficient reporting may be one of the major reasons. Chinese medicine is not widely and globally used to treat cancer pain.