Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9989546
DC FieldValue
dc.titleQuality Evaluation of Randomized Controlled Trials of Rhodiola Species: A Systematic Review
dc.contributor.authorLi, Xiuzhu
dc.contributor.authorChen, Weijie
dc.contributor.authorXu, Yingqi
dc.contributor.authorLiang, Zuanji
dc.contributor.authorHu, Hao
dc.contributor.authorWang, Shengpeng
dc.contributor.authorWang, Yitao
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-12T10:04:32Z
dc.date.available2022-10-12T10:04:32Z
dc.date.issued2021-07-01
dc.identifier.citationLi, 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
dc.identifier.issn1741-427X
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/232645
dc.description.abstractBackground. 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.
dc.publisherHindawi Limited
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceScopus OA2021
dc.typeReview
dc.contributor.departmentDEPT OF PHARMACY
dc.description.doi10.1155/2021/9989546
dc.description.sourcetitleEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
dc.description.volume2021
dc.description.page9989546
Appears in Collections:Students Publications

Show simple 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 Jan 26, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons