BackgroundWe investigated whether there had been an improvement in the quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture and moxibustion published in Chinese journals. We compared the compliance rate for the quality of reporting following the publication of both the STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations in China.MethodsFour Chinese databases were searched for RCTs of acupuncture from January 1978 through to December 2012. The CONSORT and STRICTA checklists were used to assess the quality of reporting. Data were collected using a standardised form. All included RCTs were divided into three distinct time periods based on the time that CONSORT and STRICTA were introduced in China, respectively. Pearson's χ2 test and/or Fisher's exact test were used to assess differences in reporting among three groups.Principal FindingsA total of 1978 RCTs were identified. Although the percentage of all the items has increased over time with the introduction of CONSORT and STRICTA in China, the actual compliance in several important methodological components, including sample size calculation (0% vs. 0% vs. 1.2%, for pre-CONSORT and pre-STRICTA, post-CONSORT but pre-STRICTA, and post-CONSORT and post-STRICTA, respectively), randomisation sequence generation (1.4% vs. 15% vs. 26.3%) and implementation (0% vs. 0% vs. 1.3%), allocation concealment (0% vs. 1.4% vs. 4.9%), and blinding (0% vs. 5.7% vs. 9.1%), remains low. Moreover, no RCTs have reported the setting and context of treatment and no descriptions of the participating acupuncturists have been provided thus far.ConclusionsOverall, the quality of the reporting of RCTs of acupuncture and moxibustion published in Chinese journals has improved since CONSORT and STRICTA were introduced in China, though the actual compliance rate of some important items were still low as of 2012. In the future, Chinese journals should enhance the adoption of the CONSORT and STRICTA statement to improve the reporting quality of the RCTs of acupuncture and moxibustion and to ensure the truth and reliability of the conclusions.

ObjectiveTo investigate the awareness and use of the Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation’s (SYRCLE) risk-of-bias tool, the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) reporting guidelines, and Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) in China in basic medical researchers of animal experimental studies.MethodsA national questionnaire-based survey targeting basic medical researchers was carried in China to investigate the basic information and awareness of SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool, ARRIVE guidelines, GSPC, and animal experimental bias risk control factors. The EpiData3.1 software was used for data entry, and Microsoft Excel 2013 was used for statistical analysis in this study. The number of cases (n) and percentage (%) of classified information were statistically described, and the comparison between groups (i.e., current students vs. research staff) was performed using chi-square test.ResultsA total of 298 questionnaires were distributed, and 272 responses were received, which included 266 valid questionnaires (from 118 current students and 148 research staff). Among the 266 survey participants, only 15.8% was aware of the SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool, with significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.003), and the awareness rates of ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC were only 9.4% and 9.0%, respectively; 58.6% survey participants believed that the reports of animal experimental studies in Chinese literature were inadequate, with significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.004). In addition, only approximately 1/3 of the survey participants had read systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports of animal experimental studies; only 16/266 (6.0%) had carried out/participated in and 11/266 (4.1%) had published systematic reviews/meta-analysis of animal experimental studies.ConclusionsThe awareness and use rates of SYRCLE’s risk-of-bias tool, the ARRIVE guidelines, and the GSPC were low among Chinese basic medical researchers. Therefore, specific measures are necessary to promote and popularize these standards and specifications and to introduce these standards into guidelines of Chinese domestic journals as soon as possible to raise awareness and increase use rates of researchers and journal editors, thereby improving the quality of animal experimental methods and reports.