Literature quality analysis of RCTs regarding acupuncture for chronic neck pain.
10.13703/j.0255-2930.2019.08.025
- Author:
Dan CHEN
1
;
Xi-Xiu NI
1
;
Lin-Jia WANG
1
;
Qian ZENG
1
;
Yu-Jie XIE
1
;
Ling ZHAO
1
Author Information
1. College of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Chengdu University of TCM, Chengdu 610075, Sichuan Province, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT);
Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA);
acupuncture;
literature quality;
neck pain;
randomized controlled trial (RCT)
- MeSH:
Acupuncture Therapy;
China;
Humans;
Neck Pain;
therapy;
PubMed;
Publications;
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
- From:
Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion
2019;39(8):889-895
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
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.
