Luo Gaoquan, Lu Liming, Zeng Jingchun
Department of Neurology, Guangzhou General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Guangzhou, China.
Faculty of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Acupunct Med. 2014 Oct;32(5):411-7. doi: 10.1136/acupmed-2014-010579. Epub 2014 Jun 17.
To investigate the quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for neurological disorders conducted in China before and after the implementation of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines.
The quality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from CONSORT and STRICTA. CONSORT and STRICTA were developed in 1996 and 2001, respectively. Thus, for the date of publication we selected 2-year periods, at 5-yearly intervals: 1994-1995; 1999-2000; 2004-2005 and 2009-2010. These selections cover the periods before the publication dates of both guidelines (1996, 2001) and at least 3 years afterwards, and provide reasonably up-to-date data. We calculated the total score for each guideline and compared reported differences during different date ranges.
For CONSORT items (maximum score 8), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined (2.5±0.6) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined (3.0±0.9) (difference 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). For STRICTA items (maximum score 17), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined (8.9±1.8) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined (10.3±1.6) (difference 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9).
The quality of reporting for studies of acupuncture for neurological disorders has generally improved since the implementation of STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines.
调查在中国实施《试验报告统一标准》（CONSORT）和《针刺对照试验干预措施报告标准》（STRICTA）指南前后，针对神经系统疾病开展的针刺随机对照试验的报告质量。
根据从CONSORT和STRICTA改编而来的部分标准，评估纳入论文的报告质量。CONSORT和STRICTA分别于1996年和2001年制定。因此，对于出版日期，我们以5年为间隔选取了2年时间段：1994 - 1995年；1999 - 2000年；2004 - 2005年和2009 - 2010年。这些时间段涵盖了两个指南出版日期之前（1996年、2001年）以及之后至少3年的时间，并提供了较为最新的数据。我们计算了每个指南的总分，并比较了不同日期范围内报告的差异。
对于CONSORT条目（满分8分），有证据表明，在1994 - 1995年和1999 - 2000年合并（2.5±0.6）与2004 - 2005年和2009 - 2010年合并（3.0±0.9）之间，报告质量有轻微改善（差异0.5，95%可信区间0.2至0.8）。对于STRICTA条目（满分17分），有证据表明，在1994 - 1995年和1999 - 2000年合并（8.9±1.8）与2004 - 2005年和2009 - 2010年合并（10.3±1.6）之间，报告质量有轻微改善（差异1.4，95%可信区间0.9至1.9）。
自STRICTA和CONSORT指南实施以来，针对神经系统疾病的针刺研究报告质量总体有所提高。
