IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0147244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do the CONSORT and STRICTA Checklists Improve the Reporting Quality of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Chinese Journals? A Systematic Review and Analysis of Trends

Author

Listed:
  • Bin Ma
  • Zhi-min Chen
  • Jia-ke Xu
  • Ya-nan Wang
  • Kuang-yang Chen
  • Fa-yong Ke
  • Jun-qiang Niu
  • Li Li
  • Cheng-ben Huang
  • Jian-xun Zheng
  • Jia-hui Yang
  • Qian-ge Zhu
  • Ya-ping Wang

Abstract

Background: We investigated whether there had been an improvement in the quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture and moxibustion published in Chinese journals. We compared the compliance rate for the quality of reporting following the publication of both the STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations in China. Methods: Four Chinese databases were searched for RCTs of acupuncture from January 1978 through to December 2012. The CONSORT and STRICTA checklists were used to assess the quality of reporting. Data were collected using a standardised form. All included RCTs were divided into three distinct time periods based on the time that CONSORT and STRICTA were introduced in China, respectively. Pearson's χ2 test and/or Fisher's exact test were used to assess differences in reporting among three groups. Principal Findings: A total of 1978 RCTs were identified. Although the percentage of all the items has increased over time with the introduction of CONSORT and STRICTA in China, the actual compliance in several important methodological components, including sample size calculation (0% vs. 0% vs. 1.2%, for pre-CONSORT and pre-STRICTA, post-CONSORT but pre-STRICTA, and post-CONSORT and post-STRICTA, respectively), randomisation sequence generation (1.4% vs. 15% vs. 26.3%) and implementation (0% vs. 0% vs. 1.3%), allocation concealment (0% vs. 1.4% vs. 4.9%), and blinding (0% vs. 5.7% vs. 9.1%), remains low. Moreover, no RCTs have reported the setting and context of treatment and no descriptions of the participating acupuncturists have been provided thus far. Conclusions: Overall, the quality of the reporting of RCTs of acupuncture and moxibustion published in Chinese journals has improved since CONSORT and STRICTA were introduced in China, though the actual compliance rate of some important items were still low as of 2012. In the future, Chinese journals should enhance the adoption of the CONSORT and STRICTA statement to improve the reporting quality of the RCTs of acupuncture and moxibustion and to ensure the truth and reliability of the conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bin Ma & Zhi-min Chen & Jia-ke Xu & Ya-nan Wang & Kuang-yang Chen & Fa-yong Ke & Jun-qiang Niu & Li Li & Cheng-ben Huang & Jian-xun Zheng & Jia-hui Yang & Qian-ge Zhu & Ya-ping Wang, 2016. "Do the CONSORT and STRICTA Checklists Improve the Reporting Quality of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Chinese Journals? A Systematic Review and Analysis of Trend," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0147244
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147244
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147244&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0147244?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0147244. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.