Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for cancer pain / 中国针灸

Based on the internationally-recognized Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA), the reported quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for cancer pain during last 10 years were evaluated. The RCTs of acupuncture for cancer pain were searched by computer. The English databases included PubMed and EMbase while the Chinese databases included CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and SinoMed. The publication date of the literature was from March 2009 to March 2019. As a result, 22 Chinese RCTs and 13 English RCTs were included. According to the CONSORT statement, among the Chinese studies, 1 RCT reported primary and secondary outcomes, 8 RCTs reported randomization, none of RCTs reported allocation concealment and blind method, and 4 RCTs reported baseline data; among the English studies, 8 RCTs reported primary and secondary outcomes, 8 RCTs reported randomization, 6 RCTs reported described allocation concealment, 7 RCTs reported blind method, and 13 RCTs reported baseline data. According to the STRICTA statement, among the Chinese studies, 17 RCTs reported the name of acupoints, 6 RCTs reported depth of insertion, 17 RCTs reported acupuncture response sought, and none of RCTs reported the qualifications of acupuncturists; among the English studies, 12 RCTs reported the name of acupoints, 7 RCTs reported depth of insertion, 8 RCTs reported acupuncture response sought, and 7 RCTs reported the qualifications of acupuncturists. The Chinese RCTs have more detailed description of acupuncture intervention and theory, but not enough attention is paid to methodological description such as randomization, blindness, data analysis. On the other hand, the English RCTs have better description of methodology, but the description of theory and details of acupuncture is relatively weak. It is concluded that more efforts were needed to further improve the clinical trial design according to the CONSORT statement and STRICTA statement to improve the quality of clinical evidence.

Reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for vascular dementia / 中国针灸

OBJECTIVE@#To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for vascular dementia.@*METHODS@#The RCTs of acupuncture for vascular dementia were systematically retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP and Wanfang databases from the date of establishment to October 31, 2018. The reporting quality of RCT was evaluated based on the internationally-recognized Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).@*RESULTS@#A total of 33 RCTs were included. According to the CONSORT statement, 12 items had a reporting rate of 0%, including important changes to methods after trial commencement, sample size, blind method, trial registry, etc.; 5 items had a reporting rate of below 10%, including trial design, type of randomization, random allocation sequence, randomization implementation and participant flow. The reporting rate was 36.36% for baseline data and 57.58% for randomization sequence generation. According to the STRICTA statement, the reporting rate was 21.21% for description of acupuncture depth, 60.61% for description of acupuncture response, 27.27% for description of additional intervention details and 0% for qualification of acupuncturists, respectively.@*CONCLUSION@#At present, the reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for vascular dementia is generally low. In the future, the RCTs of acupuncture for vascular dementia should be normatively reported according to the CONSORT statement and STRICTA statement.

Literature quality analysis of RCTs regarding acupuncture for chronic neck pain / 中国针灸

The internationally-accepted Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were applied to evaluate the literature quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding acupuncture for chronic neck pain in past 10 years. The literature of RCTs regarding acupuncture for chronic neck pain was searched by computer; the English literature was searched in PubMed and EMbase, while the Chinese literature was searched in CNKI, Wanfang database, VIP database and China Biomedical Literature Database. The literature published from January 2008 to January 2018 was searched. As a result, 29 Chinese articles and 10 English articles were included. According to CONSORT, among Chinese articles, 28 articles (96.6%) described baseline data, 23 articles (79.3%) described randomization, 0 articles (0.0%) described allocation concealment, 3 articles (10.3%) described blind method; among English articles, 6 articles (60.0%) described baseline data, 8 articles (80.0%) described randomization, 8 articles (80.0%) described allocation concealment, and 7 articles (70.0%) described blind method. According to STRICTA, among Chinese articles, 8 articles (27.6%) described needle instrument selection, 18 articles (62.1%) described needle depth, 24 articles (82.8%) described needling sensation, and 0 articles (0.0%) described acupuncturist' qualifications; among English articles, 5 articles (50.0%) described needle instrument selection, 8 articles (80.0%) described needle depth, 3 articles (30.0%) described needling sensation, and 4 articles (40.0%) described acupuncturist' qualifications. In conclusion, the reporting of acupuncture details in Chinese literature is superior to that in English literature, while the reporting of trial design in English literature is slightly superior to that in Chinese literature. Moreover, both Chinese and English literature need to further improve clinical trial design to improve the reporting quality of clinical evidence based on CONSORT and STRICTA.

Impact evaluation of CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines on reporting quality for randomized controlled trials of acupuncture conducted in China / 中国结合医学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate and compare the reports' qualities of acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China before and after the implementation of two guidelines, i.e., the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Proportions of studies that reported CONSORT and STRICTA items were compared for the years before and after implementation of these two guidelines. In addition, the total score of each item's reporting were calculated and reported differences during different date ranges were compared.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>For CONSORT items (maximum score 8), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined (2.5±0.6) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined (3.0±0.9; difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 0.6, P<0.01). For STRICTA items (maximum score 17), there was evidence that a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined (8.6±2.1) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined (10.1±1.8; difference 1.5, 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.9, P<0.01).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Quality of reporting for RCTs of acupuncture treatment conducted in China have generally improved since the introduction of the STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines.</p>