Acupuncture analgesia has been evaluated by a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, a systematic summary of reporting quality of RCTs in this specific field is lacking.
Objective
To examine the reporting characteristics and risk of bias of RCTs of acupuncture analgesia indexed in the PubMed database.
Methods
A PubMed search of RCTs of acupuncture analgesia was conducted through November 2015. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias of each trial.
Results
206 articles were identified across 59 journals (impact factor 0.4–20), of which 56% of articles and 86% of journals were Science Citation Index (SCI)-indexed. Nearly half of the articles were published in China. The next most represented countries of origin were the UK (22%) and USA (21%). Of the included trials, postoperative pain was the most prevalent phenotype, and manual acupuncture was the most frequently applied type of stimulation (46%). A total of 12% of articles reported on analgesic mechanisms. The most frequently used acupuncture points were LI4, ST36, PC6, SP6 and Shenmen. The overwhelming majority of trials were considered to be at high risk of bias (84%). Furthermore, 79% of trials enrolled <50 participants per treatment arm.
Conclusions
RCTs of acupuncture analgesia indexed in PubMed journals generally exhibited poor reporting of methodological and treatment details. Future studies should provide more information regarding clinical trial registration, blinding of participants (including sham procedures where applicable) and outcome assessors, as well as the training and qualification of acupuncturists.
WuJN. A short history of acupuncture. J Altern Complement Med1996;2:19–21.
2.
FanAY“Obamacare” covers fifty-four million Americans for acupuncture as Essential Healthcare Benefit. J Integr Med2014;12:390–3.
3.
World Health Organization. Acupuncture: review and analysis of reports on controlled clinical trials. Geneva: World Health Organization2002. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42414 (accessed 5 Jan 2017).
4.
VaseL, BaramS, TakakuraN, Specifying the nonspecific components of acupuncture analgesia. Pain2013;154:1659–67.
5.
SinhaYK, CraigJC, SureshkumarP, Risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacological interventions in children and adults. J Pediatr2014;165:367–71.e1.
6.
ChanAW, AltmanDG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet2005;365:1159–62.
7.
HopewellS, DuttonS, YuLM, The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ2010;340:c723.
8.
Armijo-OlivoS, StilesCR, HagenNA, Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract2012;18:12–18.
MacphersonH, AltmanDG, HammerschlagR, Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA): extending the CONSORT Statement. Acupunct Med2010;28:83–93.
12.
HigginsJ, AltmanD, SterneAC. Chapter 8. Assessing risk of bias in included studiesIn: Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). London: The Cochrane Collaboration2011http://handbook.cochrane.org (accessed 5 Jan 2017).
13.
HigginsJP, AltmanDG, GotzschePC, The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2011;343:d5928.
14.
LiXQ, TaoKM, YangGL, How do systematic reviews of acupuncture for pain relief incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis? A methodological study. Acupunct Med2016;34:84–9.
15.
ProkoschV, FinkJ, HeiduschkaP.Randomised clinical trials on acupuncture in the Korean literature: bibliometric analysis and methodological quality. Acupunct Med2014;32:160–6.
16.
RobinsonKA, DickersinK.Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol2002;31:150–3.
Xiu-xiaL, YaZ, Yao-longC, The reporting characteristics and methodological quality of Cochrane reviews about health policy research. Health Policy2015;119:503–10.
21.
BurkeA, UpchurchDM, DyeC, Acupuncture use in the United States: findings from the National Health Interview Survey. J Altern Complement Med2006;12:639–48.
22.
HongweiZ, JinlingT.Design and selection of the placebo acupuncture in clinical trials. Chin J Integr Med2003;23:247–50.
23.
MelanderH, BeermannB.Evidence b(i)ased medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ2003;326:1171–3.
24.
MathieuS, BoutronI, MoherD, Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA2009;302:977–84.
25.
CarrD.Raising the bar on the ethical standards of acupuncture research. Acupunct Med2015;33:178–9.
26.
HigginsJP, AltmanDG. Chapter 8. Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies. In: HigginsJP, GreenS.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2008:187–241.
27.
HammerschlagR, MilleyR, ColbertA, Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture (1997–2007): an assessment of reporting quality with a CONSORT- and STRICTA-based instrument. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med2011;2011: pii: 183910.
28.
KimKH, KangJW, LeeMS, Assessment of the quality of reporting for treatment components in Cochrane Reviews of acupuncture. BMJ Open2014;4:e004136.
29.
PradySL, RichmondSJ, MortonVM, A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials. PLoS One2008;3:e1577.
30.
MaB, KeF, ZhengE, Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by Chinese journals of Traditional Chinese Medicine: a survey of journal editors and review of journals’ instructions for authors. Acupunct Med2016;34:178–83.
31.
LuoG, LuL, ZengJ.Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for neurological diseases conducted in China. Acupunct Med2014;32:411–17.
32.
LuL, LiaoM, ZengJ, Quality of reporting and its correlates among randomized controlled trials on acupuncture for cancer pain: application of the CONSORT 2010 Statement and STRICTA. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther2013;13:489–98.
33.
PlintAC, MoherD, MorrisonA, Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust2006;185:263–7.
34.
OomensMA, LazzariS, HeymansMW, Association between funding, risk of bias, and outcome of randomised controlled trials in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2016;54:46–50.
35.
McKibbonKA, FridsmaDB. Effectiveness of clinician-selected electronic information resources for answering primary care physicians’ information needs. J Am Med Inform Assoc2006;13:653–9.
36.
MitchellJA, AronsonAR, MorkJG, Gene indexing: characterization and analysis of NLM's GeneRIFs. AMIA Annu Symp Proc2003:460–4.
37.
AltmanDG, SchulzKF, MoherD, The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration (4). Ann Intern Med2001;134:663–94.
