Evaluation of the report quality of Chinese and English randomized controlled trials of acupuncture based on CONSORT statement and STRICTA checklist.
10.13703/j.0255-2930.20220328-k0005
- Author:
Wen-Cui XIU
1
;
Xing MENG
1
;
Xiang-Yu HU
1
;
Lan-Jun SHI
1
;
Wei-Juan GANG
1
;
Xiang-Hong JING
1
Author Information
1. Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
CONSORT statement;
STRICTA checklist;
acupuncture;
randomized controlled trial (RCT);
report quality evaluation
- MeSH:
Humans;
Acupuncture Therapy;
Checklist;
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards*
- From:
Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion
2023;43(3):355-361
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the report quality of Chinese and English randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture based on the CONSORT statement and STRICTA checklist.
METHODS:The Chinese and English RCTs of acupuncture published from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 were searched in 7 databases including PubMed. The report quality of the included RCTs was evaluated with the CONSORT 2010 statement and STRICTA checklist.
RESULTS:A total of 506 Chinese RCTs and 76 English RCTs were included. According to the CONSORT statement, in Chinese RCTs, the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 78.38% of all items, and the report rate of 25 items, such as background and reason, study design, outcome index, and sample size, was less than 10%. In English RCTs, the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 35.14% of all items, and 5 items had a report rate of less than 10%. The difference of the report rate of 15 items, such as background, reason and study design, was more than 50% between Chinese and English RCTs. The report rate of all items of STRICTA checklist was relatively high in both Chinese and English RCTs. In Chinese RCTs, the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 29.41% of all items, which included acupuncture rationale and depth of insertion. In English RCTs, only two items had a report rate less than 50%, which were acupuncture rationale, setting and context of treatment. The report rate of five items, including needle retention time, frequency and duration of treatment sessions, details of other interventions administered to the acupuncture group, setting and context of treatment, and precise description of the control or comparator in Chinese RCTs, were higher than in English RCTs.
CONCLUSION:The report quality of Chinese acupuncture RCT needs to be improved urgently, and corresponding measures should be taken to further standardize the writing and reporting of acupuncture clinical research.
