ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2016
A survey of evidence users about the information need of acupuncture clinical evidence.
Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture: the PRISMA for acupuncture checklist.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019Article
- Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe PRISMA statement was rarely used in the field of acupuncture, possibly because of knowledge gaps and the lack of items tailored for characteristics of acupuncture. And with an increasing number of systematic reviews in acupuncture, it is necessary to develop an extension of PRISMA for acupuncture. And this study was the first step of our project, of which the aim was to investigate the need for information of clinical evidence on acupuncture from the perspectives of evidence users.
methodsWe designed a questionnaire based on a pilot survey and a literature review of acupuncture systematic review or meta-analysis(SR/MA). Participants from five cities (Lanzhou, Chengdu, Shanghai, Nanjing and Beijing) representing the different regions of China, including clinicians, researchers and postgraduates in their second year of Master studies or higher level, were surveyed.
resultsA total of 269 questionnaires were collected in 18 hospitals, medical universities and research agencies, and 251 (93 %) with complete data were used for analysis. The average age of respondents was 33 years (SD 8.959, range 25-58) with male 43 % and female 57 %. Most respondents had less than 5 years of working experience on acupuncture, and read only one to five articles per month. Electronic databases, search engines and academic conferences were the most common sources for obtaining information. Fifty-six percent of the respondents expressed low satisfaction of the completeness of information from the literature. The eight items proposed for acupuncture SR/MAs received all high scores, and five of the items scored higher than eight on a scale zero to ten. The differences for the scores of most items between postgraduates and non-postgraduates were not statistically significant.
conclusionsThe majority of the respondents were not very satisfied with the information provided in acupuncture SRs. Most of the items proposed in this questionnaire received high scores, and opinions from postgraduates and non-postgraduates tended to agree on most items. Comments from the respondents can promote future work.
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.