2017
DOI: 10.1136/acupmed-2016-011130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Suggestions regarding Adaptation of the Stricta Guidelines for Reporting Acupuncture Practice and Research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
(1 reference statement)
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Item 4a (details of co-interventions) was difficult to score, as it was not possible to know whether lack of description meant no co-intervention was used or the item was not reported. For this item, the approach described by Clark et al 27 was used, with the item scored as 0 and supporting evidence noted as ‘not available’.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Item 4a (details of co-interventions) was difficult to score, as it was not possible to know whether lack of description meant no co-intervention was used or the item was not reported. For this item, the approach described by Clark et al 27 was used, with the item scored as 0 and supporting evidence noted as ‘not available’.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Information relating to the background of the practitioner and other components of the treatment, such as the use of additional acupuncture therapies (‘co‐interventions’), was lacking. The STRICTA guideline does not distinguish between the absence of a co‐intervention and the lack of information about co‐interventions, which can create confusion when assessing STRICTA items relating to the trial setting 27 . Poor reporting of the setting and context has been found in other reviews 28,29 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The STRICTA guideline does not distinguish between the absence of a cointervention and the lack of information about co-interventions, which can create confusion when assessing STRICTA items relating to the trial setting. 27 Poor reporting of the setting and context has been found in other reviews. 28,29 This may limit the generalisability of the results from this review to other similar interventions.…”
Section: Main Findingsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Clark et al (32) también mencionan que algunos ítems no son claros en su redacción y, por ende, hacen difícil su cumplimiento, uno de los mencionados es el ítem 4b (el de menor cumplimiento en nuestro estudio), en donde los autores mencionan la necesidad de ampliar y crear subítems como instrucciones para los pacientes (lo que se dice al paciente durante el procedimiento), el contexto clínico y el país.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified