SynthesisBMJ open2025
Overall reporting quality of randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for low back pain reported after 2020: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for low back pain (LBP) and investigate associated factors. STUDY
designA systematic review was conducted to identify and evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for LBP reported after 2020. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) and CONSORT-Outcomes statements were used to evaluate the reporting quality of the included studies. Regression analyses were performed on pre-specified study characteristics to explore factors associated with the reporting quality. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, VIP Database and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were systematically searched from January 2021 to January 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only RCTs enrolling patients with LBP diagnosed according to the criteria of the North American Spine Society or other recognised clinical guidelines were included. The eligible interventions comprised manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture and other acupuncture-related therapies. Publication language was restricted to English and Chinese. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Literature screening, data extraction and reporting quality assessment were independently conducted by two reviewers with professional training. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.
resultsFifty-seven RCTs were ultimately included, with a median overall quality score of 32 (range, 17-54). The CONSORT-based median quality score (QS) was 14 (range, 7-31). Among the 37 items comprised in the statement, 11 were sufficiently reported (reporting rate, >80%), whereas 19 were inadequately reported (reporting rate, <30%). Under-reported items were mainly associated with open science and key methodological domains. For the STRICTA reporting standards, the reporting quality of RCTs was satisfactory, with a median QS of 9 (range, 4-13). Only four of the 17 items in STRICTA were under-reported, and the setting and context of treatment had the lowest reporting rate (2/57). The CONSORT-Outcomes-based median QS was 8 (range, 5-16). Among the 17 items, 5 were well reported, and 10 were poorly reported. In addition, RCTs published in English and funded studies had higher reporting quality.
conclusionRCTs of acupuncture for LBP should focus more on reporting open science, key methodology, details of acupuncture and comprehensive outcome-related information. Authors and journals, especially those in China, need to strengthen their adherence to the CONSORT statement and its extensions to enhance the reporting quality of RCTs.
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.