ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2015
STRICTA: is it time to do more?
Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laser acupuncture in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- The role of acupuncture as a complementary therapy for sepsis: a narrative review of the evidence and future trial directions.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Fire Needle Therapy for Nocturnal Leg Cramps in Older Adults: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Pilot Trial Protocol.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Research status and prospects of acupuncture for autism spectrum disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Review
- The reporting quality of acupuncture for neurogenesis in experimental ischemic stroke study.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Acupuncture for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to facilitate the completeness and transparency of reporting on randomized controlled trials undertaken using acupuncture interventions, a consensus group of international experts developed the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) in 2002. This reporting guideline was updated in 2010, and was applicable to a broader range of acupuncture research, including uncontrolled trials and case reports. Subsequent evaluations have noted limitations on the impact of STRICTA in the reporting quality of acupuncture trials, and the description of acupuncture details remains poor. Thus improvement in the efficacy of the STRICTA guidelines is called for. DISCUSSION: We explored the STRICTA guidelines from four aspects, including the development procedure, validity assessment, endorsement and adherence, and citation situation. Based upon these findings, we provided five potential suggestions for further development of STRICTA. SUMMARY: STRICTA are valid reporting guidelines based on robust methodology and scientific content. However specific implementation strategies including: updating the STRICTA checklist; improving the STRICTA reporting efficiency; consistency with implementing the "Instructions for authors" for journals; establishing global STRICTA research centers; and expanding the STRICTA website, are needed. Such strategies will improve their utilization and impact positively on the quality of reporting on acupuncture research outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.