Objectives To explore the quality of the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), PubMed, EMbase, the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBMdisc), VIP Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (from establishment to February 2007). We also checked the reference lists of included studies. The quality of the reporting of RCTs was assessed using the 22-item checklist of the CONSORT Statement and other self-established criteria. Results Thirty-eight RCTs were included. The word “randomization” was not present in any of the trials, and only 17 reports used a structured abstract. All trials did not report the scientific background and the rational for the trial, the estimation of the necessary sample size, the methods of allocation concealment and blinding, participant flow chart, ITT analysis, and ancillary analyses. Some authors misunderstood the diagnostic criteria and inclusion criteria, some selected inappropriate control interventions, and some did not clearly describe their statistical methods or used incorrect methods. All 38 trials reported positive outcomes, few reported adverse effects. No report included a general interpretation of the new trial’s results in the context of current evidence in their discussion section, and none mentioned the limitations of the study, the clinical and research implications or the external validity of the trial findings. Conclusion The overall reporting quality of RCTs of TCM for CFS is poor. Defects are found in each section of the reports. Researchers and journal editors should learn and use the principles and methods of evidence-based medicine—especially the use of a transparent prospective clinical trial register and the CONSORT Statement—to improve the design, conduct and report TCM trials.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the clinical features of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) cases with pathogens infection. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including VIP, WanFang Data, CNKI, CBM, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Elsevier and Google Scholar from 1994 to 2014 for CFS-related studies. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then we systematically reviewed and analyzed the information on demographic characteristics, clinical manifestations, types of infected pathogens, and results of some biochemical examinations. ResultsA total of 84 studies (case reports and case series) involving 2 565 CFS cases from 18 countries were included. The major infected pathogens of included CFS cases were mycoplasma, EB virus, intestinal virus, Bernat rickettsia, human-herpes virus, and Gram-negative intestinal bacteria. Fifty-seven studies reported that there might be associations between the pathogenic infection and CFS pathogenesis. Although there were different types of CFS-related pathogens, almost all the studies inferred that pathogens infection linked with immune dysfunction, which might cause CFS symptoms. ConclusionThere may be associations between the pathogenic infection and CFS pathogenesis.
ObjectiveTo investigate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical trials involving Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome. MethodsWe searched PubMed, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome. The methodological and reporting quality of included RCTs was respectively evaluated according to the assessment tool of risk of bias of the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 and the CONSORT 2010 statement, combined with complementary assessment by the characteristic indicators of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). The methodological and reporting quality of included case series study was respectively assessed by the methods recommended by the Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the STROBE statement. ResultsA total of 27 clinical trials were included, involving 11 RCTs and 16 case series studies. According to the assessment tool of risk of bias of the Cochrane Handbook, 54.5% of the RCTs performed proper random method, 9.1% conducted allocation concealment and blinding, 72.7% selected intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis without the report of loss to follow-up, and no RCT existed selective reports. Corresponding to the characteristic indicators of TCM, 54.5% of the RCTs did not conduct TCM syndrome diagnosis, the curative effect standard of TCM syndrome was discrepant, and no RCT was multi-center study. The CONSORT 2010 statement indicated that no RCT explained sample size estimation, implementation details of randomization, flow diagram of participant, use of ITT and clinical trial registration. According to the items recommended by Britain's NICE, 6.25% of the case series studies were multi-center, 81.25% did not report clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and no case series study performed continuous patient recruitment and stratification analysis of outcome. The STROBE statement indicated that no case series study reported research design, sample size, flow chart, bias, limitations and generalizability. ConclusionThe quality of clinical trials about Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome is still low in methodological and reporting aspects. It is suggested that the future clinical trials should be conducted with references of CONSORT statement and STROBE statement, to propel the modernization and internationalization of TCM.