Abstract

BackgroundWe are witnessing an exponential increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported from mainland China. The increase is particularly notable in the field of new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics. Several previous studies have raised doubts regarding their quality. However, the quality of most recent RCTs published in China may have improved.MethodsWe searched RCTs that examined new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics published between 2013 and 2016 in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the largest database of scientific publications in China. We interviewed the authors of a random subset of the identified references. We assessed the methodological rigor of each study based on the published reports and telephone interviews with the authors using six methodological domains adapted from the Cochrane’s risk of bias tool.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 138 studies, for which we interviewed 58 authors; the authors of 51 studies declined the interview, and the authors of 29 studies could not be contacted. The 51 studies with refused interviews were significantly less likely to be reported from university-affiliated hospitals and were less likely to be published in Chinese core journals. Based on the published reports, most of the 58 studies were assessed to be at unclear risk of bias in most methodological domains. After the interview, only 10 studies were assessed to be at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment. Assuming that the studies for which the authors declined interviews had an unclear risk, the proportion of RCTs at low risk of bias in both sequence generation and allocation concealment was 9.2% (10/109, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0 to 16.2). The interviews indicated that the studies were at high risk of bias for most of the other domains.ConclusionIn general, RCTs that evaluate new generation antidepressants or antipsychotics and are indexed in the CNKI continue to be of low quality. When conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this field, it would be wise to include a specialist from China as a coresearcher to help assess the risk of bias in the identified studies.

Highlights

  • We are witnessing an exponential increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported from mainland China

  • Based on the telephone interview results, the proportion of RCTs assessed to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment was 17.2% (10/58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.6% to 29.0%)

  • We identified only RCTs that examined new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the results may not be generalizable to RCTs from China in other specialties or RCTs identified from China found in other databases

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We are witnessing an exponential increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported from mainland China. Less than 3% of the published Cochrane reviews had searched major Chinese databases [7], even though they are supposed to conduct a comprehensive search to avoid publication bias [8] This lack may be due, in part, to the language barrier; it is likely due to the purported low methodological quality of most studies published in China. Wu et al [9] reported after interviewing 2235 authors by telephone that only 6.8% of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between 1995 and 2005 identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) adhered to accepted methodology for randomization. News in the past few years has implicated an alarmingly high proportion of plagiarism, falsification or fabrication in the scientific and clinical literature from China [13,14,15]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call