Problems with the outcome measures in randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine in treating chronic heart failure caused by coronary heart disease: a systematic review

Table 4 Reporting status of each item for the assessment of outcome reporting quality

Study ID	Reporting quality of outcome measures [13]
Study ID	1. Is the primary outcome clearly stated?	2. Is the primary outcome clearly defined so that another researcher would be able to reproduce its measurement?	3. Are the secondary outcomes clearly stated?	4. Are the secondary outcomes clearly defined?	5. Do the authors explain the use of the outcomes they have selected?	6. Are methods used to enhance the quality of outcome measurement if appropriate?
Junxian Qi 2010 [14]		x			x
Dong Wang 2010 [15]		x
Lanfang Ren 2017 [16]		x
Zhitian Zhou 2005 [17]		x			x
Changling Yuan 2012 [18]		x
Litao Qu 2017 [19]		x				x
Qing Zou 2012 [20]		x
Yunyou Cheng 2012 [21]		x				x
Lihong Gong 2012 [22]		x
Junli Lu 2012 [23]		x				x
Xu Gu 2003 [24]		x
Dongmin Liu 2011 [25]		x
Hua Zhou 2007 [26]		x
Renkui Lai 2015 [27]		x
Na Lin 2017 [28]		x				x
Deyu Zhao 2011 [29]		x			x
Wei Zhang 2010 [30]		x
He Li 2013 [31]		x			x
Hao Huang 2006 [32]		x			x
Zhen Yang 2016 [33]		x
Xinping Niu 2015 [34]		x			x
Jie Xu 2005 [35]		x			x
Haitao Liu 2003 [35]		x
Youhe Ma 2001 [37]		x
Yuan Liu 1996 [38]		x
Shaoxiang Xian 2016 [39]	x	x	x	x
Liangtao Luo 2014 [40]	x	x	x	x		x
Zhanfeng Zhang 2018 [41]		x			x
Songyu Zhang 2018 [42]		x
Yongzhi Wang 2018 [43]		x
Junfang Lv 2018 [44]		x

Notes: x in the column represents the study reported the corresponding item; empty columns indicate the study did not mention the item; studies with clear definitions of outcomes which did not preset primary or secondary outcomes were noted x in item 2

ISSN: 2662-7671