SynthesisFrontiers of medicine2024
Suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials on non-pharmacological therapies in Chinese medicine.
Synthesis in Frontiers of medicine, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the successive release of the CONSORT extensions for acupuncture, moxibustion, cupping, and Tuina/massage, this review aims to assess the reporting characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on these specific guidelines. A comprehensive review was conducted by searching multiple databases, including Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R), All EBM Reviews, AMED, CNKI, VIP Chinese Medical Journal Database, and Wanfang Data, for publications from January 1 to December 31, 2022. Two reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of the records, extracted predetermined information, and assessed the reporting based on the STRICTA, STRICTOM, STRICTOC, and STRICTOTM checklists. Among the included 387 studies (acupuncture, 213; Tuina/massage, 85; moxibustion, 73; cupping, 16), the overall reporting compliance averaged 56.0%, with acupuncture leading at 62.6%, followed by cupping (60.2%), moxibustion (53.1%), and Tuina/massage (47.9%). About half of the evaluated items showed poor reporting (compliance rate < 65%). Notably, international journals demonstrated significantly higher reporting quality than Chinese journals (P < 0.05). Although acupuncture trials had relatively higher compliance rates, deficiencies persist in reporting non-pharmacological therapies of Chinese medicine, particularly in areas like treatment environment details and provider background information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39115794What 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.