Use of the hCONSORT criteria as a reporting standard for herbal interventions for common dermatoses: a systematic review

Abstract

Our data indicate lack of adherence to hCONSORT extension criteria. Adherence to hCONSORT guidelines should be encouraged in order to provide high-quality reporting of research on herbal interventions in dermatology. Doing so may ease the integration of CAM into conventional medical practice and provide actionable data to providers.

Assessing Quality of Reporting of Herbal Dermatology Trials from the Philippines using the hCONSORT Checklist: a Systematic Review

“…Our results are similar to the 2011 systematic review of 11 top selling herbal products in the USA (mean compliance, 38%), 7 and the 2018 review that included herbal products for acne, atopic dermatitis, or psoriasis (15% of studies reported less than half of hCONSORT items). 8 On the other hand, our findings contrast with the 2015 systematic review that reported more than 80% of included studies that complied to more than 50% of the items in the hCONSORT checklist. 9 Since this 2015 review included RCTs for 20 registered herbal products in Thailand, the high reporting compliance may be a reflection of the robust herbal medicine industry and integration into their national formulary.…”

“…7 None of the studies stated using a standardized herbal product, and this may be because the products used in traditional practice are not pure compounds and active constituents have not been identified. Compared to this finding, the previous systematic reviews showed that 33% 12 to 51% 7 of studies reported on standardization details. This may be explained by the more developed herbal industry in higher-income countries, and is especially relevant in resource-limited countries like the Philippines where lack of access to costly drugs may be bridged by readily available traditional medicinal plants.…”

“…In a previous systematic review, 70% of the assessed articles also did not provide the recommended information on dosing regimen and cited that even the rationale for dosing and frequency of application of topical agents such as steroids has been limited. 8 In the Discussion, less than 5% of the studies in this review discussed generalizability of results that would have elucidated on the applicability of the study findings under different conditions. This finding contrasts with previous systematic review that showed 67% of studies reported on generalizability, although only 14% discussed this in relation to self-care and practice.…”

“…7 Similarly, a 2018 systematic review on published RCTs (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL, 2009-2014) of herbal interventions for three common dermatoses (acne, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis), showed that majority (22/26) of reviewed studies reported less than 50% of the recommended hCONSORT criteria. 8 On the other hand, a 2015 systematic review of published herbal RCTs from ASEAN Plus Six Countries (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), up to October 2013) on 20 top herbal species listed in the National Essential List of Medicines of Thailand showed that 15/22 hCONSORT checklist items were reported by more than 80% of studies. 9 Previous studies showed that variables such as type of journal, year of publication, and type of herb improved reporting quality.…”

“…A 2018 systematic review shows that herbal RCTs for the treatment of acne were more likely to report a higher number of the unique hCONSORT criteria (score=4.9) than those treating eczema (score, 3) or psoriasis (score, 2.9), although this was not statistically significant. 12 Institutions that have dermatology training programs accredited by the Philippine Dermatological Society undergo regular research training and join research competitions, which may theoretically result in better quality of research reporting compared to non-accredited institutions.…”