Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 14;9(11):e113172. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113172. eCollection 2014.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture.

Author information

1
Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Clinical Translational Research and Evidence-Based Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China.
2
Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
3
Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
4
Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Clinical Translational Research and Evidence-Based Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
5
Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Department of Cardiology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Ji'nan, Shandong Province, China.
6
Acupuncture and Massage College, Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.
7
Department of Neurology, Gansu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.

METHODS:

We performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).

RESULTS:

Of 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were "protocol and registration", "risk of bias across studies", and "additional analyses" in both methods and results sections.

CONCLUSIONS:

SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.

PMID:
25397774
PMCID:
PMC4232579
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0113172
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center