Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9989546
Title: Quality Evaluation of Randomized Controlled Trials of Rhodiola Species: A Systematic Review
Authors: Li, Xiuzhu
Chen, Weijie
Xu, Yingqi
Liang, Zuanji
Hu, Hao
Wang, Shengpeng
Wang, Yitao
Issue Date: 1-Jul-2021
Publisher: Hindawi Limited
Citation: Li, Xiuzhu, Chen, Weijie, Xu, Yingqi, Liang, Zuanji, Hu, Hao, Wang, Shengpeng, Wang, Yitao (2021-07-01). Quality Evaluation of Randomized Controlled Trials of Rhodiola Species: A Systematic Review. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2021 : 9989546. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9989546
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: Background. Rhodiola is a worldwide used medicinal plant for its various medicinal functions, and the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Rhodiola is increasing in recent years. This study aims to evaluate the reporting quality and risk of bias of the current RCT reports of different Rhodiola species. Methods. Six databases including Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrial.gov, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched to identify RCTs that used Rhodiola as a single intervention and were published in English or Chinese from inception to December 2020. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was used as the checklist for assessment, and a scoring system was applied to the evaluation of RCTs. Score 0 represents no reporting or inadequate reporting, and score 1 represents adequate reporting. The risk of bias of the included studies was also assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results. A total of 39 RCTs were included in this study, including 23 RCTs of Rhodiola rosea (R. rosea), 8 RCTs of Rhodiola crenulata (R. crenulata), and 8 RCTs of Rhodiola wallichiana (R. wallichiana). None of the included studies met all the CONSORT statement criteria, and the reporting quality of RCTs of the three Rhodiola species was all generally poor. Based on the risk of bias assessment, the majority of included studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias in most domains due to inadequate reporting. Conclusions. There is inadequate reporting among the included RCTs of different Rhodiola species, and RCTs of Rhodiola with higher reporting quality and better methodological quality are needed. © 2021 Xiuzhu Li et al.
Source Title: Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/232645
ISSN: 1741-427X
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9989546
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Students Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1155_2021_9989546.pdf1.65 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

1
checked on Oct 12, 2022

Page view(s)

1
checked on Dec 1, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons