Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of reporting quality between Chinese and English studies (CONSORT)

From: The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of electroacupuncture for stroke

CONSORT item Chinese N = 54 English N = 16 Chinese vs. English (P-value for difference)
n %(n/54) 95%CI n %(n/16) 95%CI
 Title 3 6c [1 to 15] 9 56 [30 to 80] 0.01
 Methods
  Trail design 48 89 [77 to 96] 10 63 [35 to 85] 0.061
  Eligibility criteria 54 100 [93 to 100] 16 100 [79 to 100] _
  Interventions 54 100 [93 to 100] 16 100 [79 to 100] _
  Primary and secondary outcome 52 96 [87 to 100] 16 100 [79 to 100] 0.442
  Sample size 3 6 [1 to 15] 1 6 [0 to 30] 0.918
  Generation of random sequence 22 41 [28 to 55] 4 25 [7 to 52] 0.239
  Allocation concealment 6 11 [4 to 23] 4 25 [7 to 52] 0.26
  Blinding 4 7 [2 to 18] 7 44 [20 to 70] 0.014
  Statistical methods 53 98 [90 to 100] 15 94 [70 to 100] 0.361
 Results
  Losses and exclusions 6 11 [4 to 23] 9 56 [30 to 80] 0.004
  Recruitment 38 70 [56 to 82] 6 38 [15 to 65] 0.017
  Numbers analysed 47 87 [75 to 95] 10 63 [35 to 85] 0.081
  Harms 14 26 [15 to 40] 7 44 [20 to 70] 0.177
  Limitations 4 7 [2 to 18] 6 38 [15 to 65] 0.33
Total mean scorea 15.2 ± 4.3 12.3 ± 3.6 0.05
  1. aMean ± SD