Article type
Abstract
Background: Decision-making should be based on well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) that provide high-quality evidence. High-quality SRs offer the most reliable evidence of the effectiveness of acupuncture, but any methodological rigor deficiencies can undermine the credibility of their findings.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of recently published acupuncture-related SRs using AMSTAR 2.
Methods: For this study, we searched 16 electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Virtual Health Library (VHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), KoreaMed, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS), Ichushi Web, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Epistemonikos database, for SRs focusing on the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment published in recent 5 years. Two reviewers extracted the general characteristics of SRs and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR 2.
Results: A total of 471 SRs were identified and appraised. Only eight SRs (2%) were of high quality; 24 (5%), 63 (13%), and 376 (80%) SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality respectively. Of the 471 SRs, 444 (94%) did not report on the sources of funding in primary studies of inclusion, 380 (81%) did not provide a list of excluded studies with justification, 365 (77%) did not assess the potential impact of risk of bias (ROB) in the result of evidence syntheses, 327 (69%) did not provide an a priori protocol, and 247 (52%) did not consider ROB of primary studies while interpreting results. The most met criterion was including PICO (95%), describing included studies in detail, and using a satisfactory technique for ROB assessment. In general, SRs that only included English databases in their searches had relatively higher overall quality than SRs including multi-lingual databases.
Conclusions: The methodological quality of SRs on acupuncture in recent years is inadequate. Future authors and reviewers should better consider research methodologies and adequate reporting to ensure trustworthy evidence for proper clinical recommendations to benefit the patients.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of recently published acupuncture-related SRs using AMSTAR 2.
Methods: For this study, we searched 16 electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Virtual Health Library (VHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), KoreaMed, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS), Ichushi Web, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Epistemonikos database, for SRs focusing on the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment published in recent 5 years. Two reviewers extracted the general characteristics of SRs and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR 2.
Results: A total of 471 SRs were identified and appraised. Only eight SRs (2%) were of high quality; 24 (5%), 63 (13%), and 376 (80%) SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality respectively. Of the 471 SRs, 444 (94%) did not report on the sources of funding in primary studies of inclusion, 380 (81%) did not provide a list of excluded studies with justification, 365 (77%) did not assess the potential impact of risk of bias (ROB) in the result of evidence syntheses, 327 (69%) did not provide an a priori protocol, and 247 (52%) did not consider ROB of primary studies while interpreting results. The most met criterion was including PICO (95%), describing included studies in detail, and using a satisfactory technique for ROB assessment. In general, SRs that only included English databases in their searches had relatively higher overall quality than SRs including multi-lingual databases.
Conclusions: The methodological quality of SRs on acupuncture in recent years is inadequate. Future authors and reviewers should better consider research methodologies and adequate reporting to ensure trustworthy evidence for proper clinical recommendations to benefit the patients.