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
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.
文摘目的评价国内外针刺防控儿童青少年近视的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial,RCT)的报告质量。方法检索中国知网、万方、中国生物医学文献数据库、维普、PubMed、Embase、The Cochrane Library等数据库中有关针刺治疗儿童青少年近视的RCT,检索时限为2001年1月至2023年12月,用临床试验报告标准声明(The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials,CONSORT)2010及针刺临床试验干预措施报告标准(Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture,STRICTA)对纳入文献的报告质量进行评价。结果初步检索获得中英文文献共1136篇,经去重、筛选后最终纳入文献66篇,包括中文59篇、英文7篇。中英文文献CONSORT条目平均报告率为43.8%和62.9%。中文文献报告缺失的条目主要集中在“方法学”、“结果”和“其他信息”3方面。中英文STRICTA清单条目总报告率分别是63.2%和74.1%;纳入的中文文献只有“所用穴位”报告率为100%,而英文文献有8个条目;“对何种治疗作了变动”、“治疗师背景”和“治疗场所和其他信息”3个条目的中文RCT报告率均<15%。结论中文针刺RCT的报告质量整体较低,未来研究者在报告针刺防控儿童青少年近视RCT研究结果时应严格按照CONSORT声明2010和STRICTA清单,以提高针刺治疗的RCT质量。
