Core outcomes were rarely reported overall in systematic reviews on acupuncture for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study

Abstract

Objective:

To identify a comprehensive list of outcomes and explore the reporting rate of core outcome sets (COS) and related factors in systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture for osteoarthritis (OA).

Study design and setting:

Databases were searched for the relative SRs. Descriptive statistics were calculated as frequencies and percentages. Binary logistic regression was used to explore the factors affecting the reporting rate of COS.

Results:

We included 59 SRs. Outcome measures reported in the SRs were classified into 11 domains and 67 unique outcomes. No SR completely reported COS. In COS released in 2016, 75% of outcomes (6/8) were only reported by ⩽5% SRs. In COS released in 2019, the reporting rate was very low (from 0% to 17%) for 73.3% of outcomes (11/15). SRs published in the most recent 5 years had a significantly greater possibility of reporting COS (odds ratio (OR) = 4.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.33 to 16.88, p = 0.016).

Conclusion:

Core outcomes were rarely reported in systematic reviews of acupuncture for OA, with considerable heterogeneity in the use of outcomes. The publication of COS in the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) database may help promote the reporting of COS. We encourage systematic reviewers to use relevant COS.

Keywords

acupuncture core outcome set epidemiology rheumatology statistics and research methods systematic review

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Litwic

Edwards

Dennison

, et al. Epidemiology and burden of osteoarthritis. Br Med Bull 2013; 105: 185–199.

GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018; 392: 1789–1858.

Abramoff

Caldera

. Osteoarthritis: pathology, diagnosis, and treatment options. Med Clin North Am 2020; 104(2): 293–311.

Cross

Smith

Hoy

, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73(7): 1323–1330.

Glyn-Jones

Palmer

Agricola

, et al. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2015; 386: 376–387.

Berman

Lao

Langenberg

, et al. Effectiveness of acupuncture as adjunctive therapy in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 901–910.

Manheimer

Cheng

Wieland

, et al. Acupuncture for hip osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 5: CD013010.

Williamson

Altman

Bagley

, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017; 18: 280.

Williamson

Altman

Blazeby

, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012; 13: 132.

10.

Dwan

Gamble

Williamson

, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(7): e66844.

11.

The COMET Initiative. About COMET, https://www.comet-initiative.org/About (2021, accessed 1 May 2021).

12.

Rolfson

Wissig

van Maasakkers

, et al. Defining an international standard set of outcome measures for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: consensus of the international consortium for health outcomes measurement hip and knee osteoarthritis working group. Arthritis Care Res 2016; 68(11): 1631–1639.

13.

Smith

Hawker

Hunter

, et al. The OMERACT-OARSI core domain set for measurement in clinical trials of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2019; 46: 981–989.

14.

Oaklander

Lunn

Hughes

, et al. Treatments for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP): an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 1: CD010369.

15.

Manheimer

Cheng

Linde

, et al. Acupuncture for peripheral joint osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 2010: CD001977.

16.

Young

Brookes

Avery

KNL

, et al. A systematic review of core outcome set development studies demonstrates difficulties in defining unique outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2019; 115: 14–24.

17.

The COMET Initiative. Outcome Classification, https://www.comet-initiative.org/Resources/OutcomeClassification (2021, accessed 1 May, 2021).

18.

Chiarotto

Ostelo

Turk

, et al. Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice. Braz J Phys Ther 2017; 21(2): 77–84.

19.

Shamseer

Moher

Clarke

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 350: g7647.

20.

Sideri

Papageorgiou

Eliades

. Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 100: 103–110.

21.

Schiavo

. PROSPERO: an international register of systematic review protocols. Med Ref Servic Quarter 2019; 38: 171–180.

22.

Smith

Clarke

Williamson

, et al. Survey of new 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews found 37% of prespecified outcomes not reported. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 237–245.

23.

Gargon

Williamson

Altman

, et al. The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities update (2015). Trials 2017; 18: 54.

24.

Gargon

Gorst

Williamson

. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PLoS ONE 2019; 14(12): e0225980.

25.

Heldmann

Werner

Belala

, et al. Early inpatient rehabilitation for acutely hospitalized older patients: a systematic review of outcome measures. BMC Geriatrics 2019; 19: 189.

26.

Saldanha

Lindsley

Money

, et al. Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020; 20: 30.

27.

Williamson

de Ávila Oliveira

Clarke

, et al. Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e036562.

28.

Saldanha

Dodd

Gorst

, et al. More than half of systematic reviews have relevant core outcome sets. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 136: 168–179.

29.

Marks

Schoones

Kolling

, et al. Outcome measures and their measurement properties for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2013; 38(8): 822–838.

30.

Krsticevic

Dosenovic

Dimcea

, et al. Outcome domains, outcome measures, and characteristics of randomized controlled trials testing nonsurgical interventions for osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2020; 47(1): 126–131.

31.

Copeland

Gallo

Weber

, et al. Reporting outcomes and outcome measures in thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Am 2021; 46(1): 65.e1–65.e11.

32.

Gargon

Crew

Burnside

, et al. Higher number of items associated with significantly lower response rates in COS Delphi surveys. J Clin Epidemiol 2019; 108: 110–120.

33.

Howe

Dawson

Syme

, et al. Evaluation of outcome measures for use in clinical practice for adults with musculoskeletal conditions of the knee: a systematic review. Man Ther 2012; 17(2): 100–118.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB