ArticleBMJ open2024
Exploration of registration and the risk of bias in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the predominant type in acupuncture clinical research, and the publications have increased rapidly in recent years, but there is a prevalence of the high risk of bias and poor methodological design in acupuncture RCTs. Clinical trial registration can improve the transparency and credibility of studies by disclosing key information in advance. However, the registration in acupuncture RCTs is not satisfactory, as there is widespread of the under-registration, inconsistency with published studies and insufficient disclosure of key methodological information. Whether registration can reduce the risk of bias in acupuncture RCTs and improve data transparency has not been fully explored. Therefore, we constructed this study to investigate the association between registration and risk of bias and data sharing level in acupuncture RCTs.
methodsSeven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases will be systematically searched between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2024, for acupuncture RCTs. Two reviewers will independently extract data using a predefined standardised format and perform secondary validation. The characteristics and data sharing level of the included studies will be summarised. The risk of bias of included RCTs will be assessed by the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The risk of bias and registration in acupuncture RCTs will be analysed by logistic or quantile regression analyses (depending on the number of minimum events). The data sharing level and registration will be analysed by quantile regression analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the systematic review aims to consolidate info from published sources, ethical approval is not necessary for this study. The study's findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal and disseminated via conference presentations. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework Registries.
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.