Why the study?
Reporting of randomized controlled trial items for ginseng is deficient due to different trial designs and reporting formats, challenging researchers seeking high-quality and reliable data.
What is the reporting quality of randomized controlled clinical trials of Asian ginseng and American ginseng based on the CONSORT guideline?
What is the reporting quality of randomized controlled clinical trials of Asian ginseng and American ginseng based on the CONSORT guideline?
The reporting quality of RCTs on Asian and American ginseng has improved over the past 40 years, though rigorous trial designs are still needed.
Reporting gains in ginseng RCTs aid clinical interpretation; confirms 40-year progress while highlighting needs for larger rigorous trials.
Ginseng is an international herb that has been used for thousands of years. Two species most commonly applied and investigated in the ginseng family are Asian ginseng and American ginseng. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) has conspicuously increased, driven by the rapid development of ginseng. However, the reporting of RCT items of ginseng is deficient because of different trial designs and reporting formats, which is a challenge for researchers who are looking for the data with high quality and reliability. Thus, this study focused on providing an extensive analysis of these two species and examined the quality of the RCTs, based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline. Ninety-one RCTs conducted from 1980 to 2019 that were related to Asian ginseng and American ginseng used singly met our inclusion criteria. We found that the reporting quality of the two species has improved during the past 40 years. Publication date and sample size were significantly associated with the reporting quality. Rigorous RCTs designed for the species of ginseng are warranted, which can shed light on product research and development of ginseng in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: