[Methodological and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with traditional Chinese medicine].

Abstract

Objective: To systematically evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the treatment of BPH with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), in order to provide some methodological reference for clinical practice and research.

Methods: We searched CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data and PubMed for RCTs on the treatment of BPH with TCM published in China from January 2013 to November 2023. Two researchers screened the literature separately, and evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of the RCTs based on the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and CONSORT TCM compound.

Results: Totally, 88 RCTs were included in this study. In terms of methodological quality, according to the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool, 27 biases in the process of randomization were identified as of low-risk and the other 61 of a certain risk. Among the allocation-related biases deviating from the established interventions, 76 were of low risk, 10 of a certain risk and 2 of high risk; among the compliance-related biases deviating from the established interventions, 76 were of low risk and 12 of a certain risk; among the biases due to missing outcome data, 86 were of low risk and 2 of a certain risk, while all the biases due to outcome measurement were of low risk; and among the biases from selective reporting, 65 were of low-risk, 2 of a certain risk and 21 of high-risk. In terms of reporting quality, according to the evaluation criteria of consort TCM compound, appropriate key words were used in 1 RCT (0.01%), the random assignment sequence method described in 27 (30.68%), the details of assignment limitation given in 5 (5.68%), assignment concealment mentioned in 3 (3.41%), the blind method and assignment concealment employed in 3 (3.41%), fall-offs recorded in 10 (11.36%), adverse events reported in 38 (43.18%), and limitations of the trials analyzed in 18 (20.45%). All the RCTs lacked complete intervention measures, subject flow chart, clinical trial registration and research schemes.

Conclusion: At present, the methodological quality and reporting quality of RCTs on the treatment of BPH with TCM are generally low, with the main problems of incomplete experimental designs, lack of detailed description of randomized and blind methods, and insufficient TCM symptom evaluation of outcome indicators. Researchers should be cautious in adopting and applying the results reported, follow the CONSORT statement in design, registration, implement and reporting of the scheme, fully consider the clinical characteristics of TCM in the treatment of BPH, and reasonably design and report the evaluation indicators.