随着针灸CONSORT扩展的相继发布,艾灸,拔罐,和推拿/按摩,本综述旨在评估基于这些特定指南的随机对照试验(RCTs)的报告特征和质量.通过检索多个数据库进行了全面审查,包括Embase,OvidMEDLINE(R),所有EBM评论,AMED,CNKI,VIP中国医学期刊数据库,和万方数据,用于2022年1月1日至12月31日的出版物。两名评审员独立评估记录的合格性,提取的预定信息,并根据STRICTA评估报告,严格地说,严格地说,和STRICTOTM清单。在纳入的387项研究中(针灸,213;推拿/按摩,85;艾灸,73;拔罐,16),总体报告合规性平均为56.0%,针灸占62.6%,其次是拔罐(60.2%),艾灸(53.1%),和推拿/按摩(47.9%)。大约一半的评估项目显示报告不佳(合规率<65%)。值得注意的是,国际期刊的报道质量显著高于中国期刊(P<0.05)。尽管针灸试验的依从率相对较高,在报告中药的非药物治疗方面仍然存在缺陷,特别是在治疗环境细节和提供者背景信息等领域。
With the successive release of the
CONSORT extensions for acupuncture, moxibustion, cupping, and Tuina/massage, this review aims to assess the reporting characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on these specific guidelines. A comprehensive review was conducted by searching multiple databases, including Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R), All EBM Reviews, AMED, CNKI, VIP Chinese Medical Journal Database, and Wanfang Data, for publications from January 1 to December 31, 2022. Two reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of the records, extracted predetermined information, and assessed the reporting based on the STRICTA, STRICTOM, STRICTOC, and STRICTOTM checklists. Among the included 387 studies (acupuncture, 213; Tuina/massage, 85; moxibustion, 73; cupping, 16), the overall reporting compliance averaged 56.0%, with acupuncture leading at 62.6%, followed by cupping (60.2%), moxibustion (53.1%), and Tuina/massage (47.9%). About half of the evaluated items showed poor reporting (compliance rate < 65%). Notably, international journals demonstrated significantly higher reporting quality than Chinese journals (P < 0.05). Although acupuncture trials had relatively higher compliance rates, deficiencies persist in reporting non-pharmacological therapies of Chinese medicine, particularly in areas like treatment environment details and provider background information.