Objective To assess the reporting quality of noninferiority and equivalence randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Methods The noninferiority and equivalence RCTs related to TCM were searched, and the quality of the included RCTs was identified in accordance with the extended version of CONSORT statement which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs. Results A total of 13 noninferiority and equivalence RCTs were included. Except for the common questions of RCTs in reporting quality, some contents related to noninferiority and equivalence trials in reporting were not enough: a) The title of RCTs did not reflect the most important content of the literature; b) The introduction of background was quite simple. The rationale about noninferiority and equivalence trials, and the effectiveness of positive control were not clearly defined; c) All literatures did not indicate whether the subjects, interventions and outcomes in the noninferiority and equivalence trials were identical or similar to those in previous trials of defining the effectiveness of control treatment; d) Most literatures did not define the critical value of noninferiority and equivalence, and did not estimate the sample size; e) Only half of literature described the statistical methods of noninferiority test and equivalence test; and f) Some literature had mistakes in noninferiority and equivalence conclusion. Conclusion The researchers still need deeper understanding of the theoretical basis of noninferiority and equivalence trials. The reference to the extended version of CONSORT statement, which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, is helpful for researchers to identify the key points of the design, performance and reporting of the noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, to lay stress on the related contents of noninferiority and equivalence trial reporting, and to radically improve the reporting quality of such clinical trials.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing.MethodsCNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect meta-analysis which published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing from inception to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and the reporting quality by AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement. Statistical analysis was then performed by using SPSS 19.0 software.ResultsA total of 53 meta-analyses were included, which involved 7 disease systems and sub-health status. The mean score of the methodological assessment by AMSTAR was 7.75±1.32, including 9 high-quality papers (17.0%), 41 middle-quality papers (77.4%), and 3 low-quality papers (5.6%). The mean score of the reporting quality assessment by PRISMA was 22.5±3.08, including 39 relatively complete papers (73.6%), 11 papers with certain defects (20.8%), and 3 papers with serious defects (5.6%).ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published on The Chinese Journal of Nursing deserves further improvement.