Tian Ran, Zhang Xuan, Li Si-Yao, Aixinjueluo Qi-Ying, Lam Wai Ching, Bian Zhao-Xiang
Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, SAR China.
China EQUATOR Centre, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, SAR China.
Chin Med. 2020 Sep 29;15:104. doi: 10.1186/s13020-020-00385-z. eCollection 2020.
Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported.
Seven databases (including four English and three Chinese databases) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 14-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion (STRICTOM). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics.
A total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 55%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions.
The reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.
艾灸是中医的主要干预手段之一。系统评价（SRs）是评估艾灸干预疗效和安全性的重要参考。本研究旨在评估这些SRs的报告质量，特别是与艾灸相关的必要信息是否得到充分报告。
系统检索七个数据库（包括四个英文数据库和三个中文数据库），以查找截至2019年12月31日发表的艾灸SRs。主要分析是根据系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）的27项以及根据中医理论和艾灸临床试验报告干预标准（STRICTOM）设计的14项艾灸相关信息来评估其报告质量。还使用描述性统计分析其基线特征。
2011年至2019年共鉴定出97篇艾灸SRs。对于PRISMA的27项，除第5、8、16和23项外，其余23项的报告符合率高于55%，其中2项（第20和26项）报告完整（100%）。然而，对于艾灸相关信息，69.1%（67/97）的SRs未提供艾灸的具体类型，39.2%（38/97）缺乏艾灸所用材料、操作和技术的详细信息，67.0%（65/97）未报告艾灸穴位的选择标准，28.9%（28/97）未提供治疗疗程的次数或持续时间，69.1%（67/97）未提供任何关于安全性评估的信息，94.8%（92/97）的SRs未报告治疗环境。在92篇包括Meta分析的SRs中，有51篇（55.4%）由于艾灸干预报告不充分，无法评估Meta分析是否正确进行。
艾灸SRs的报告质量在艾灸干预及相关理论依据的充分报告方面需要进一步提高。应制定“艾灸干预的PRISMA扩展报告指南”以提高其质量。
