Liu Xin, Xu Ziqiao, Wang Yuting, Luo Huiling, Zou Donglei, Zhou Ziyuan, Zhuang Lixing
Clinical Medical College of Acupuncture Moxibustion and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510000, People's Republic of China.
Faculty of Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 999077, People's Republic of China.
J Pain Res. 2021 Apr 21;14:1141-1151. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S308006. eCollection 2021.
This study aims to improve the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by evaluating RCTs of acupuncture for low back pain (LBP) based on the CONSORT and STRICTA statements.
Literature from the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang database, and Chongqing Weipu (VIP) was systematically searched from 2010 to 2020. The general characteristics and the overall quality score (OQS) of the literature were evaluated by two investigators. The agreement between investigators was calculated using Cohen's kappa statistics.
A total of 31 RCTs were extracted in the final analysis. Based on the CONSORT statement, the items "title and abstract", "background and objectives", "intervention", "outcomes", "statistical methods", "baseline data", "outcomes and estimation" and "interpretation" have a positive rate of greater than 80%. The items "implementation", "generalizability" and "protocol" have a positive rate of less than 30%. Based on the STRICTA statement, the items "style of acupuncture", "needle retention time", "number of treatment sessions", "frequency and duration of treatment" and "precise description of the control or comparator" have a positive rate of greater than 80%. The item "extent to which the treatment was varied" has a positive rate of less than 30%. The agreements among most items are determined to be moderate or good.
The reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for LBP is moderate. Researchers should rigidly follow the CONSORT and STRICTA statements to enhance the quality of their studies.
本研究旨在通过基于CONSORT和STRICTA声明评估针刺治疗腰痛（LBP）的随机对照试验（RCT），提高RCT的报告质量。
系统检索2010年至2020年Cochrane图书馆、Medline、Embase、Ovid、中国知网（CNKI）、万方数据库和重庆维普（VIP）中的文献。由两名研究人员评估文献的一般特征和总体质量评分（OQS）。使用Cohen's kappa统计量计算研究人员之间的一致性。
最终分析共提取31项RCT。基于CONSORT声明，“标题和摘要”“背景和目的”“干预措施”“结局”“统计方法”“基线数据”“结局和估计”以及“解读”等项目的阳性率大于80%。“实施”“可推广性”和“方案”等项目的阳性率小于30%。基于STRICTA声明，“针刺方式”“留针时间”“治疗疗程数”“治疗频率和持续时间”以及“对照或比较组的精确描述”等项目的阳性率大于80%。“治疗变化程度”项目的阳性率小于30%。大多数项目之间的一致性被确定为中等或良好。
针刺治疗LBP的RCT报告质量中等。研究人员应严格遵循CONSORT和STRICTA声明，以提高研究质量。
