Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: QUOROM statement and PRISMA statement were published in 1999 and 2009. However, not all systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analysis (MAs) completely reported those important information. It is significant to know which information was ignored by reviewers.
Objectives: To evaluate the reporting quality in SRs/MAs on acupuncture.
Methods: We searched the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (CBM), Traditional Chinese Medicine database (TCM database), Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD) and Wanfang Database, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) until March 2011. Data was extracted into excel spreadsheets according to pre-prepared data extracted forms. The reporting quality was assessed based on PRISMA checklists (27 items) and assessment checklists for SRs/MAs on acupuncture (13 items) by two reviewers, respectively.
Results: A total of 1914 reviews were searched, of which, 285 were included. There were 105, 144 and 36 SRs/MAs in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. The minimum scores and maximum of PRISMA were 10 and 24, 7 and 26, 20 and 26 in the Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, separately. Their mean were 19.13, 19.21 and 23.50 in the Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. The included SRs/MAs failed to comprehensive report the information of interventions in SRs/MAs of acupuncture, such as acupuncture rationale (33.33%; 95/285), the details of needling (48.42%; 138/285) and treatment regimen (51.93%; 148/285).
Conclusions: The SRs/MAs on acupuncture have not comprehensive reporting of relevant information, especially those acupuncture feature information. The researchers should be pay attention to the scientific study design, strict performance and comprehensive reporting of SRs/MAs on acupuncture.
Objectives: To evaluate the reporting quality in SRs/MAs on acupuncture.
Methods: We searched the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (CBM), Traditional Chinese Medicine database (TCM database), Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD) and Wanfang Database, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) until March 2011. Data was extracted into excel spreadsheets according to pre-prepared data extracted forms. The reporting quality was assessed based on PRISMA checklists (27 items) and assessment checklists for SRs/MAs on acupuncture (13 items) by two reviewers, respectively.
Results: A total of 1914 reviews were searched, of which, 285 were included. There were 105, 144 and 36 SRs/MAs in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. The minimum scores and maximum of PRISMA were 10 and 24, 7 and 26, 20 and 26 in the Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, separately. Their mean were 19.13, 19.21 and 23.50 in the Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. The included SRs/MAs failed to comprehensive report the information of interventions in SRs/MAs of acupuncture, such as acupuncture rationale (33.33%; 95/285), the details of needling (48.42%; 138/285) and treatment regimen (51.93%; 148/285).
Conclusions: The SRs/MAs on acupuncture have not comprehensive reporting of relevant information, especially those acupuncture feature information. The researchers should be pay attention to the scientific study design, strict performance and comprehensive reporting of SRs/MAs on acupuncture.