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 compare the results of intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured by Goldmann tonometer with which measured by Tono-pen tonometer, and to evaluate the feasibility of Tono-pen tonometer.MethodsA total of 120 patients were selected, including 60 who had undergone simple pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and the other 60 who had undergone PPV with silicon filling. IOP of all of the patients was measured by Goldmann tonometer or Tono-pen tonometer 3 days after the operation, and the results of the two measurements were compared.ResultsThe mean IOP was (19.72±4.62) mm Hgin the patients measured by Goldmann tonometer and (19.69±4.60) mm Hg in patients measured by Tono-pen tonometer. There was no statistic difference of results between the two measurements (P＞0.05). High correlation between the results of the two methods when the IOP was at 8 to 29 mm Hg was found. ConclusionsTono-pen tonometer is a simple method to measure the IOP of patients who have undergone PPV or PPV with silicon filling when their IOP is at 8 to 29 mm Hg.(Chin J Ocul Fundus Dis, 2005,21:303-305)
Objective To investigate inter-observer reproducibility in the pathologic diagnosis of breast intraductal proliferative lesions (BDPL). Methods Forty three BDPL patients were diagnosed by criterion of Page. Every specimen from each case was sorted randomly. All slides were classified as mild usual hyperplasia, moderate-severe usual hyperplasia, mild atypical hyperplasia, moderate-severe atypical hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ, or ductal carcinoma in situ with invasion. Inter-observer agreement of the two groups was statistically analyzed using Kappa test. Then we compared all the diagnoses of individual pathologist with the consensus opinion confirmed by two breast pathologists to analyze the diagnostic accuracy and undue diagnosis. Results Inter-observer reproducibility of the trial group was higher than that of the control group (The total K value of 6, 3, and 2 diagnoses in the two groups were 0.289 3, 0.337 1, 0.492 8, 0.100 3, 0.150 3 and 0.340 3, respectively). When the categories were simplified, inter-observer reproducibility increased. There were still undue diagnoses of different degrees among pathologists of the trial group. Conclusion Using the same criteria is an important method to increase the diagnostic reproducibility and accuracy. More practice is needed to familiarize with these criteria.
