Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for cancer pain.
10.13703/j.0255-2930.20190619-k0004
- Author:
Xi-Xiu NI
1
;
Tian TIAN
1
;
Lu LIU
1
;
Xiao LI
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;
cancer pain;
literature report quality;
randomized controlled trial (RCT)
- MeSH:
Acupuncture Therapy;
Cancer Pain;
therapy;
Humans;
Neoplasms;
complications;
therapy;
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic;
standards
- From:
Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion
2020;40(6):671-677
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
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.
