Quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation

Abstract

BackgroundResults from clinical studies on acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation are contradictory. The reason for the inconsistent findings especially lie in the transparency and accuracy of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reports. This study aims to analyze the quality of reporting and its correlates in RCTs on acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation.MethodsQuality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the CONSORT 2010 statement and STRICTA. An overall quality score (OQS) and a combined key methodological index score (MIS) was calculated for each trial. Then, factors associated with OQS and MIS were identified.ResultsA total of 15 RCTs were included in full text. The median OQS based on the CONSORT statement and STRICTA was 8 and 12, respectively. The significant predictors for CONSORT OQS was funding source, for STRICTA was year of publication. With regard to the MIS, no variable was associated with improved methodological quality.ConclusionsOur study found that the overall quality of reporting on RCTs of acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation was general or good. But some items’ reporting was found where information was insufficient or inadequate in most studies which needed substantial improvement.

The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of electroacupuncture for stroke

“…Meanwhile, based on STRICTA statement, item 4a: Details of other interventions and 4b: Setting and context of treatment, the positive rate was 20 and 33% respectively. The quality of reporting of RCTs on EA for stroke in present study is similar to the results of Zhuang’s study [10]. This result indicates some improvements in the quality of reporting of RCTs on both acupuncture and EA for stroke.…”

“…Compared with zhang’s study [9], the quality of reporting RCTs of EA for stroke in present study is better. In 2014, Zhuang et al [10] analyzed the quality of reporting of only 15 RCTs on acupuncture for subacute and chronic stroke, indicating that poor reporting existed in terms of outcomes, sample size, outcomes and estimation, ancillary analyses, with positive rate less than 30% according to CONSORT statement. Meanwhile, based on STRICTA statement, item 4a: Details of other interventions and 4b: Setting and context of treatment, the positive rate was 20 and 33% respectively.…”

“…One probable reason is that reporting of several important aspects of trial methods improved because the endorsement of the CONSORT Statement and STRICTA statement. Another possible reason is that Zhuang [10] studied only a small number of selected RCTs, thus the conclusions may not be scientifically sound and may be misleading. For present EA study, the third possible reason is that EA is more readily controlled, standardized and objectively measurable.…”

“…In 2006, one study [9] demonstrated that the quality of reporting of 74 RCTs on acupuncture for acute stroke was generally poor. In 2014, another study [10] indicated that the quality of reporting of only 15 RCTs on acupuncture for subacute and chronic stroke was improved but some central items were still insufficiently or inadequately reported in most of the studies. However, no study has yet been conducted to assess the quality of reporting RCTs on EA for stroke.…”

Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study

“…[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] But most have focused on small numbers of trials or specific diseases, journals, or time periods. These studies used various criteria for their assessments, which were frequently not defined.…”