BACKGROUND Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are the major interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which are typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. The Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) of CHMs are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHMs interventions; they are expected to be accurate and reliable. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to CHM was adequately reported. METHODS The Cochrane Database was systematically searched for all SRs of CHM that were published up to 31 December 2017. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 9-item of CHM-related information designed according to TCM theory. Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyze their baseline characteristics. RESULTS A total of 109 Cochrane SRs of CHM were identified from 1999 to 2017. For 27-item of PRISMA, 26 had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 11 were fully reporting (100%). However, for CHM-related information, 65 (59.6%) SRs did not report the specific name of the CHM in the title, 42 (38.5%) lacked TCM-related rationales in the introduction, 62 (56.9%) did not include CHM-related characteristics in the additional analyses, and 77 (70.6%) did not analyze CHM results in terms of TCM-related theories in the discussion. Of 97 SRs that included clinical trials, 38 (39.2%) did not provide the details of composition and dosage of CHMs, 85 (87.6%) did not report the CHM sources, 13 (13.4%) did not provide the dosage form, 95 (97.9%) lacked CHM quality control information, and 57 (58.8%) did not describe details of the controls. For 62 (72.9%) of 85 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of CHM interventions. CONCLUSION Although the Cochrane SRs of CHM showed reporting compliance with PRISMA checklist, their reporting quality needs improvement, especially about full reporting of CHM interventions and of TCM-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for CHM interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.

中文翻译：

---

报告中草药对Cochrane系统评价的质量。

背景技术中草药（CHM）是传统中药（TCM）的主要干预措施，其通常以单一草药或配方形式施用。CHM的Cochrane系统评价（SR）是评估CHM干预措施的有效性和安全性的重要参考；他们被期望是准确和可靠的。这项研究旨在评估这些SR的报告质量，尤其是是否充分报告了与CHM相关的必要信息。方法对Cochrane数据库进行系统搜索，以查找截至2017年12月31日已发布的所有CHM SR。主要分析是根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项的27个项目评估其报告质量。根据中医理论设计与CHM相关的信息的9个项目。描述性统计数据还用于分析其基线特征。结果从1999年至2017年，共鉴定出109种CHM的Cochrane SR。对于PRISMA的27个项目，有26个报告的合规性高于50％，其中11个报告的合规性（100％）。但是，对于与CHM相关的信息，有65（59.6％）个SR没有在标题中报告CHM的具体名称，42个（38.5％）的简介中缺少与TCM相关的原理，62个（56.9％）不包括CHM在其他分析中，CHM的相关特征不存在，有77（70.6％）位在讨论中未根据中医相关理论分析CHM的结果。在包括临床试验的97个SR中，有38个（39.2％）没有提供CHM的组成和剂量的详细信息，有85个（87.6％）没有提供CHM的来源，有13个（13.4％）没有提供其剂型，95 （97。9％的人缺乏CHM质量控制信息，而57（58.8％）的人没有描述控制的细节。对于包括荟萃​​分析的85个SR中的62个（占72.9％），由于对CHM干预措施的报告不足，无法评估荟萃分析是否已正确进行。结论尽管CHM的Cochrane SRs报告符合PRISMA清单，但其报告质量仍需改进，尤其是关于CHM干预措施的全面报告以及与中医相关的基本原理。应该制定“ PRISMA扩展CHM干预措施”的报告指南，从而提高其质量。由于对CHM干预措施的报告不足，无法评估是否已正确进行了荟萃分析。结论尽管CHM的Cochrane SRs报告符合PRISMA清单，但其报告质量仍需改进，尤其是关于CHM干预措施的全面报告以及与中医相关的基本原理。应该制定“ PRISMA扩展CHM干预措施”的报告指南，从而提高其质量。由于对CHM干预措施的报告不足，无法评估是否已正确进行了荟萃分析。结论尽管CHM的Cochrane SRs报告符合PRISMA清单，但其报告质量仍需改进，尤其是关于CHM干预措施的全面报告以及与中医相关的基本原理。应该制定“ PRISMA扩展CHM干预措施”的报告指南，从而提高其质量。