The quality of articles published in Chinese medical journals has led to debates in Western academia. The conclusion of a recent systematic review on the clinical effectiveness of treatment with hyperbaric oxygen for neonatal hypoxic-ischaemic encephalophathy that the "Chinese medical literature may be a rich source of evidence to inform clinical practice and other systematic reviews" [73] was disputed. In an online rapid response, Peter C. Gotzsche ("No double standards in research, please" dated 26 th August 2006) argued that Liu et al. had provided no evidence for their statement. The standard adopted by Cochrane and CONSORT by which the Chinese trials identified in [73] are judged to be of poor quality, are not "Western" as declared by Liu et al. since they are adopted internationally, including by the Chinese Cochrane Centre. Gotzsche also cited two reviews [74, 75] to argue that "Chinese trials are far more positive, on average, than trials performed in other countries". In another study, Wang and Zhang found that by 1995, the "frequency of using statistical tests in Chinese medical journals appears comparable to that in other parts of the world", but "the lack or inappropriate use of statistics remains a problem" [76] .