Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 16, 2025

An In Vitro Dissolution Determination of Multi-Index Components in Tibetan Medicine Rhodiola Granules
Published on: November 4, 2022
Randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine published in English from 2010 to 2019: a bibliometrics study
Jing Hu1, Hui-Na Zhang1, Shuo Feng1
1Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Background:
As the use of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the international market increases, the number of clinical studies including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CHM which published in international journals has also increased. Using bibliometrics, we systematically and comprehensively analyzed the research status of CHM RCTs published in English during the period of 2010 to 2019.
Methods:
Electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. CHM RCTs published in English between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. We randomly selected 20% from the eligible articles. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out by extracting information on general information, characteristics of the study participants, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias assessment of included RCTs.
Results:
Two hundred and twenty-seven CHM RCTs published in English were included in our study. Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine was the journal which published most of the relevant papers (22.0%). A total of 45,774 participants were included, sample size ranged from 12 to 3,143 (median: 115). The most common disease was the circulatory diseases (n=36, 15.9%). Decoction was the most common dosage form (28.2%), and "CHM vs. placebo" was the most common type of control (36.1%). The median of the total number of outcomes was 4 (range, 1-14), 92 (40.5%) did not clearly specify any primary outcome, 56 (24.7%) did not report any adverse event, 41 (18.1%) and 68 (30.0%) reported traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)-specific outcomes and quality of life, respectively. Eighty-five (37.4%) did not report sufficient information about the random sequence generation process, 100 (44.1%) used the adequate allocation concealment, 92 (40.5%) blinded participants and key study personnel, and 24 (10.6%) blinded outcome assessors.
Conclusions:
Our results provided insight into the research status regarding CHM RCTs published in English during the past decade, this study may be helpful in understanding research trends in this field.
More Related Videos
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
09:16Author Spotlight: Optimization of Processing Technology for Tiebangchui with Zanba Based on CRITIC Combined with Box-Behnken Response Surface Method
Published on: May 12, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...