Article type
Abstract
Background:Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) including acupuncture and moxibustion (A&M) still play roles in the health system, and the number of guidelines increase rapidly. However, their reporting quality is still unknown.
Objectives:To assess the reporting quality of the guideline on acupuncture and moxibustion.
Methods:We applied a 3-step method including: 1) establish the search strategy; 2) screen the A&M guidelines from the database; and, 3) use RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of all eligible guidelines. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are organised into 7 sections.
Results:Five A&M guidelines were included, and all of which developed by the China Academy of TCM. Except in the years of publication or focus of the guidelines, each item been clearly presented in the section of basic information. None of guidelines described the target populations in the section of background. For the evidence section, either the update of existing systematic reviews or selecting and sorting of outcomes were not indicated. All items were sufficiently detailed somewhere in the two sections of recommendations, review and quality assurance. All of guidelines described the funding, declaration and management of interests. No other information about suggestions for further research and limitations of the guideline.
Conclusions:The A&M guidelines reported most of the items with good reporting quality, but there are still some problems. We suggest that the A&M guideline developers acquire more knowledge about reporting quality.
Objectives:To assess the reporting quality of the guideline on acupuncture and moxibustion.
Methods:We applied a 3-step method including: 1) establish the search strategy; 2) screen the A&M guidelines from the database; and, 3) use RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of all eligible guidelines. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are organised into 7 sections.
Results:Five A&M guidelines were included, and all of which developed by the China Academy of TCM. Except in the years of publication or focus of the guidelines, each item been clearly presented in the section of basic information. None of guidelines described the target populations in the section of background. For the evidence section, either the update of existing systematic reviews or selecting and sorting of outcomes were not indicated. All items were sufficiently detailed somewhere in the two sections of recommendations, review and quality assurance. All of guidelines described the funding, declaration and management of interests. No other information about suggestions for further research and limitations of the guideline.
Conclusions:The A&M guidelines reported most of the items with good reporting quality, but there are still some problems. We suggest that the A&M guideline developers acquire more knowledge about reporting quality.