Chen Dan, Ni Xi-Xiu, Wang Lin-Jia, Zeng Qian, Xie Yu-Jie, Zhao Ling
College of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Chengdu University of TCM, Chengdu 610075, Sichuan Province, China.
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2019 Aug 12;39(8):889-95. doi: 10.13703/j.0255-2930.2019.08.025.
The internationally-accepted Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were applied to evaluate the literature quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding acupuncture for chronic neck pain in past 10 years. The literature of RCTs regarding acupuncture for chronic neck pain was searched by computer; the English literature was searched in PubMed and EMbase, while the Chinese literature was searched in CNKI, Wanfang database, VIP database and China Biomedical Literature Database. The literature published from January 2008 to January 2018 was searched. As a result, 29 Chinese articles and 10 English articles were included. According to CONSORT, among Chinese articles, 28 articles (96.6%) described baseline data, 23 articles (79.3%) described randomization, 0 articles (0.0%) described allocation concealment, 3 articles (10.3%) described blind method; among English articles, 6 articles (60.0%) described baseline data, 8 articles (80.0%) described randomization, 8 articles (80.0%) described allocation concealment, and 7 articles (70.0%) described blind method. According to STRICTA, among Chinese articles, 8 articles (27.6%) described needle instrument selection, 18 articles (62.1%) described needle depth, 24 articles (82.8%) described needling sensation, and 0 articles (0.0%) described acupuncturist' qualifications; among English articles, 5 articles (50.0%) described needle instrument selection, 8 articles (80.0%) described needle depth, 3 articles (30.0%) described needling sensation, and 4 articles (40.0%) described acupuncturist' qualifications. In conclusion, the reporting of acupuncture details in Chinese literature is superior to that in English literature, while the reporting of trial design in English literature is slightly superior to that in Chinese literature. Moreover, both Chinese and English literature need to further improve clinical trial design to improve the reporting quality of clinical evidence based on CONSORT and STRICTA.
采用国际公认的试验报告统一标准（CONSORT）和针刺对照试验干预措施报告标准（STRICTA）来评估过去10年中关于针刺治疗慢性颈痛的随机对照试验（RCT）的文献质量。通过计算机检索针刺治疗慢性颈痛的RCT文献；英文文献检索PubMed和EMbase，中文文献检索中国知网、万方数据库、维普数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库。检索2008年1月至2018年1月发表的文献。结果，纳入中文文章29篇，英文文章10篇。根据CONSORT，中文文章中，28篇（96.6%）描述了基线数据，23篇（79.3%）描述了随机化，0篇（0.0%）描述了分配隐藏，3篇（10.3%）描述了盲法；英文文章中，6篇（60.0%）描述了基线数据，8篇（80.0%）描述了随机化，8篇（80.0%）描述了分配隐藏，7篇（70.0%）描述了盲法。根据STRICTA，中文文章中，8篇（27.6%）描述了针具选择，18篇（62.1%）描述了针刺深度，24篇（82.8%）描述了针感，0篇（0.0%）描述了针灸师资质；英文文章中，5篇（50.0%）描述了针具选择，8篇（80.0%）描述了针刺深度，3篇（30.0%）描述了针感，4篇（40.0%）描述了针灸师资质。综上所述，中文文献中针刺细节的报告优于英文文献，而英文文献中试验设计的报告略优于中文文献。此外，中文和英文文献都需要进一步改进临床试验设计，以提高基于CONSORT和STRICTA的临床证据报告质量。
