RESUMO
OBJECTIVE@#To evaluate and compare the normativity of overview report of systematic review (Overviews) of acupuncture and moxibustion at home and abroad so as to further improve the report quality of Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion in China and provide reliable evidences.@*METHODS@#The articles relevant with Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion at home and abroad were retrieved by computer from the databases of CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, China BioMedical Literature database (SinoMed), PubMed, Embase and Conchrane Library, dated from the time of establishment to February 12, 2019. The preferred reporting items for Overviews (PRIO-harms) was adopted to evaluate their normativity and make the comparison of the articles between China and foreign countries.@*RESULTS@#A total of 13 articles of Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion were included, 9 articles of them were of Chinese version and the rest were of English version. The results of PRIO-harms indicated that the proportions of the item numbers related to adequate, partial and inadequate adherence of Chinese version were 3.7%, 63.8% and 32.5%, and those of English version were 12.0%, 57.4% and 30.6% respectively. The reports on the item 10 "additional search for primary studies", the item 12 "data items" and the item 26 "Dual/(co-)authorship" were inadequate adherence by 100% in the articles of both Chinese and English version.@*CONCLUSION@#The overall information of English article report is better than Chinese one, but the reports of either Chinese or English articles are not so satisfactory. It is suggested that the Overviews report should be in reference to the specification in PRIO-harms and the Chinese researchers should study the advantages of English article report and improve the normalization and report quality so as to obtain the high-quality evidences in evidence-based medicine.
Assuntos
Humanos , Terapia por Acupuntura , China , MoxibustãoRESUMO
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.