OBJECTIVE:In recent years,the number of clinical research reports on acupuncture and manipulation for the treatment of greater occipital neuralgia has gradually increased,but the quality is uneven.There is currently n...OBJECTIVE:In recent years,the number of clinical research reports on acupuncture and manipulation for the treatment of greater occipital neuralgia has gradually increased,but the quality is uneven.There is currently no literature evaluating the quality of published reports,which is not conducive to the promotion of clinical use of these therapies.Therefore,this article assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture and manipulation for greater occipital neuralgia.METHODS:Cochrane Library,PubMed,Web of Science,Embase,China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),VIP,WanFang Data,and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database(CBM)from inception to May 20,2024 were searched.The reporting quality of included randomized controlled trials was independently evaluated by two investigators using the CONSORT statement,STRICTA checklist,and Cochrane bias of risk assessment tool.A third investigator resolved any disagreement.RESULTS:A total of 62 articles were included.Based on the CONSORT statement,59.46%(22/37)of all entries had a reporting rate of less than 50%,mainly including“Identification as a randomized trial in the title(1/62,1.61%),”“How sample size was determined(7/62,11.29%),”“Implementation(1/62,1.61%),”“Blinding(1/62,1.61%),”and“Reports of Funding(4/62,6.45%).”According to the STRICTA checklist,29.41%(5/17)of all entries had a reporting rate of less than 50%,mainly including“Details of other interventions(7/58,12.07%),”“Setting and context of treatment(0/58,0%),”and“Description of participating acupuncturists(0/58,0%).”CONCLUSION:The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture and manipulation therapy for greater occipital neuralgia remains low.Future researchers need to make greater efforts to strictly adhere to the CONSORT statement and STRICTA checklist during trial design,implementation,and reporting.This will facilitate the standardization of research in this field and enhance the reliability and reproducibility of the research results.展开更多
目的:评估糖尿病足溃疡随机对照试验(RCTs)的报告质量及影响因素。方法:系统检索EMbase、the Cochrane Library、Web of Science和PubMed数据库中关于糖尿病足溃疡的RCTs,依据临床试验报告统一标准中摘要的报告规范(CONSORT-A)评价纳入...目的:评估糖尿病足溃疡随机对照试验(RCTs)的报告质量及影响因素。方法:系统检索EMbase、the Cochrane Library、Web of Science和PubMed数据库中关于糖尿病足溃疡的RCTs,依据临床试验报告统一标准中摘要的报告规范(CONSORT-A)评价纳入文献摘要的报告质量。采用SPSS 26.0统计软件分析摘要报告质量的影响因素。结果:共纳入305篇文献,纳入文献摘要报告内容的平均报告率为39.1%,CONSORT-A得分为3.5~13.5(7.69±0.21)分。报告质量明显较低的项目包括随机化、盲法、结果和资金。多重线性回归分析结果显示,第一作者来自北美洲、作者人数较多、样本量较大、期刊影响因子较高、多中心研究、摘要字数较多是该领域摘要报告质量的影响因素(P<0.05)。结论:糖尿病足溃疡RCTs摘要的报告质量总体处于中等水平,亟须倡导并积极实施CONSORT-A以提高报告质量。展开更多
CONSORT声明即报告试验的综合标准(consolidated standards of reporting trials),是基于证据的随机试验报告要点总结。CONSORT声明包含1个25项清单和1个流程图,为作者撰写研究结果报告提供了一种标准方法。为进一步规范随机对照研究的...CONSORT声明即报告试验的综合标准(consolidated standards of reporting trials),是基于证据的随机试验报告要点总结。CONSORT声明包含1个25项清单和1个流程图,为作者撰写研究结果报告提供了一种标准方法。为进一步规范随机对照研究的报告形式,以下节选2010 CONSORT声明的相关内容,供广大作者对照检查。展开更多
CONSORT声明即报告试验的综合标准(consolidated standards of reporting trials)是基于证据的随机试验报告要点总结。CONSORT声明包含1个25项清单和1个流程图,为作者撰写研究结果报告提供了一种标准方法。为进一步规范随机对照研究的...CONSORT声明即报告试验的综合标准(consolidated standards of reporting trials)是基于证据的随机试验报告要点总结。CONSORT声明包含1个25项清单和1个流程图,为作者撰写研究结果报告提供了一种标准方法。为进一步规范随机对照研究的报告形式,以下节选2010 CONSORT声明的相关内容,供广大作者对照检查。展开更多
目的:评估针对膝骨性关节炎治疗中安慰针刺的随机对照试验(RCT)文献的质量,探讨安慰针刺临床试验设计的思路。方法:计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、维普中文期刊全文数据数据库(VIP)、万方数据知识服务平台(WF)、中国生物医学文...目的:评估针对膝骨性关节炎治疗中安慰针刺的随机对照试验(RCT)文献的质量,探讨安慰针刺临床试验设计的思路。方法:计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、维普中文期刊全文数据数据库(VIP)、万方数据知识服务平台(WF)、中国生物医学文献数据库(SinoMed)、PubMed、Web of Science(WOS)及Embase数据库,收集使用单纯针刺与安慰针刺进行对比的针灸治疗膝骨性关节炎RCT研究,检索时限从建库至2022年12月31日。使用CONSORT与TIDieR-Placebo标准评估文献报告质量,并对结果进行分析讨论。结果:共纳入20篇文献。CONSORT评价结果显示报告率不高于10%的条目为条目3b、6b、11b、12b、14b、17b、18。TIDieR-Placebo评价结果显示报告率不高于10%的条目为条目6、9、10、11、13。安慰针刺的方式主要为“假穴假刺”“假穴真刺”“假穴浅刺”“非治疗穴真刺”“治疗穴假刺”5种。结论:有关安慰针刺的临床试验尚不严谨,质量有待提高。为推动针灸领域临床研究的标准化,建议未来的研究应更加重视依据这些标准来规范化研究报告。展开更多
文摘OBJECTIVE:In recent years,the number of clinical research reports on acupuncture and manipulation for the treatment of greater occipital neuralgia has gradually increased,but the quality is uneven.There is currently no literature evaluating the quality of published reports,which is not conducive to the promotion of clinical use of these therapies.Therefore,this article assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture and manipulation for greater occipital neuralgia.METHODS:Cochrane Library,PubMed,Web of Science,Embase,China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),VIP,WanFang Data,and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database(CBM)from inception to May 20,2024 were searched.The reporting quality of included randomized controlled trials was independently evaluated by two investigators using the CONSORT statement,STRICTA checklist,and Cochrane bias of risk assessment tool.A third investigator resolved any disagreement.RESULTS:A total of 62 articles were included.Based on the CONSORT statement,59.46%(22/37)of all entries had a reporting rate of less than 50%,mainly including“Identification as a randomized trial in the title(1/62,1.61%),”“How sample size was determined(7/62,11.29%),”“Implementation(1/62,1.61%),”“Blinding(1/62,1.61%),”and“Reports of Funding(4/62,6.45%).”According to the STRICTA checklist,29.41%(5/17)of all entries had a reporting rate of less than 50%,mainly including“Details of other interventions(7/58,12.07%),”“Setting and context of treatment(0/58,0%),”and“Description of participating acupuncturists(0/58,0%).”CONCLUSION:The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture and manipulation therapy for greater occipital neuralgia remains low.Future researchers need to make greater efforts to strictly adhere to the CONSORT statement and STRICTA checklist during trial design,implementation,and reporting.This will facilitate the standardization of research in this field and enhance the reliability and reproducibility of the research results.
文摘目的:评估针对膝骨性关节炎治疗中安慰针刺的随机对照试验(RCT)文献的质量,探讨安慰针刺临床试验设计的思路。方法:计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、维普中文期刊全文数据数据库(VIP)、万方数据知识服务平台(WF)、中国生物医学文献数据库(SinoMed)、PubMed、Web of Science(WOS)及Embase数据库,收集使用单纯针刺与安慰针刺进行对比的针灸治疗膝骨性关节炎RCT研究,检索时限从建库至2022年12月31日。使用CONSORT与TIDieR-Placebo标准评估文献报告质量,并对结果进行分析讨论。结果:共纳入20篇文献。CONSORT评价结果显示报告率不高于10%的条目为条目3b、6b、11b、12b、14b、17b、18。TIDieR-Placebo评价结果显示报告率不高于10%的条目为条目6、9、10、11、13。安慰针刺的方式主要为“假穴假刺”“假穴真刺”“假穴浅刺”“非治疗穴真刺”“治疗穴假刺”5种。结论:有关安慰针刺的临床试验尚不严谨,质量有待提高。为推动针灸领域临床研究的标准化,建议未来的研究应更加重视依据这些标准来规范化研究报告。
