Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: One of the major purposes of systematic review is to guide future randomized studies to resolve current conflicts or address uncertainty in clinical practice. Concerns have been raised regarding waste in research due to inadequate use of existing evidence for planning or designing future research. However, whether and how systematic reviews were used in the design of randomized trials remains uncertain.
Objectives: To investigate how systematic reviews have been used in the planning and design of randomized acupuncture trials.
Methods: Study protocols for randomized controlled acupuncture trials with trial registration numbers published from January 2008 to April 2013 were searched through four English databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and AMED). A full list of reference titles in the included study protocols was screened to identify cited systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses.
Results: Thirty-eight study protocols that referenced a total of 108 systematic reviews 118 times were eligible. Most protocols (n=30; 79%) were for randomized parallel trials. Thirty-seven protocols (97%) cited at least one review (median value of 3). Cochrane reviews were referenced in 16 protocols (42%). Reviews were predominantly used for identifying current evidence levels of diseases/conditions or available treatments in 36 of 37 review-cited protocols (97%). Other areas of use included justification of study interventions and comparisons (n=12; 32%), estimation of the difference to detect or margin of equivalence (n=2; 5%), formulation of acupuncture treatment details (n=2; 5%), estimation of the control group event rate (n=3; 8%), selection or definition of outcome (n=6; 16%), collection and analyses of adverse events (n=3; 8%), duration of follow-up (n=1; 3%) and other areas that were not directly related to the design of the respective protocol (n=9; 24%).
Conclusions: Most protocols used systematic reviews for the purpose of background description and only a minor portion referenced systematic reviews to inform the design. Adequate use of systematic reviews in the design of future randomized acupuncture trials is needed to reduce waste in research.
Objectives: To investigate how systematic reviews have been used in the planning and design of randomized acupuncture trials.
Methods: Study protocols for randomized controlled acupuncture trials with trial registration numbers published from January 2008 to April 2013 were searched through four English databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and AMED). A full list of reference titles in the included study protocols was screened to identify cited systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses.
Results: Thirty-eight study protocols that referenced a total of 108 systematic reviews 118 times were eligible. Most protocols (n=30; 79%) were for randomized parallel trials. Thirty-seven protocols (97%) cited at least one review (median value of 3). Cochrane reviews were referenced in 16 protocols (42%). Reviews were predominantly used for identifying current evidence levels of diseases/conditions or available treatments in 36 of 37 review-cited protocols (97%). Other areas of use included justification of study interventions and comparisons (n=12; 32%), estimation of the difference to detect or margin of equivalence (n=2; 5%), formulation of acupuncture treatment details (n=2; 5%), estimation of the control group event rate (n=3; 8%), selection or definition of outcome (n=6; 16%), collection and analyses of adverse events (n=3; 8%), duration of follow-up (n=1; 3%) and other areas that were not directly related to the design of the respective protocol (n=9; 24%).
Conclusions: Most protocols used systematic reviews for the purpose of background description and only a minor portion referenced systematic reviews to inform the design. Adequate use of systematic reviews in the design of future randomized acupuncture trials is needed to reduce waste in research.