School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Sep 27;103(39):e39933. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000039933.
Although Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Acupuncture (PRISMA-A) checklists had been in use for several years, compliance rate was still not optimistic. We investigated the quality of reporting for meta-analyses of acupuncture published in PubMed. We compared the compliance rate for the quality of reporting following the publication of both the PRISMA and PRISMA-A recommendations. We searched PubMed for articles published between January 1st, 2020 and December 31st, 2022, after Endnote X9 document management software and manual screening, 180 meta-analyses of acupuncture were selected as samples. The PRISMA, and PRISMA-A checklists were used to evaluate the quality of the literature. Data were collected using a standard form. Pearson χ2 test and/or Fisher exact test were used to assess differences in reporting among groups. Logistic regression is used to calculate OR and its 95% CI. The total reported compliance rate of all items in the PRISMA list was 61.3%, and the reported compliance rate of the items with a compliance rate of <50% accounted for 35.71% of the total items. The total reported coincidence rate of all items in the PRISMA-A was 56.9%, and the reported coincidence rate of the items with a reported coincidence rate of <50% accounted for 31.25% of all the items. The compliance rate of the published research to PRISMA or PRISMA-A has no statistical difference between the Journal Citation Reports partition (Quarter1-Quarter2) and Journal Citation Reports partition (Quarter3-Qurater4) (P > .05). Regardless of the level of journals published, have obvious deficiencies in the details of the study, the reference basis for the design of the study, the analysis method, the degree of strictness, the scientific nature, and other aspects. We must strengthen education on the standardization of research reports.
尽管系统评价和荟萃分析（PRISMA）以及针灸系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目（PRISMA-A）清单已经使用了多年，但合规率仍然不容乐观。我们调查了在 PubMed 上发表的针灸荟萃分析报告的质量。我们比较了在 PRISMA 和 PRISMA-A 建议发布后，报告质量的合规率。我们在 Endnote X9 文档管理软件和手动筛选后，于 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日在 PubMed 上搜索文章，选择了 180 篇针灸荟萃分析作为样本。使用 PRISMA 和 PRISMA-A 清单评估文献质量。使用标准表格收集数据。使用 Pearson χ2 检验和/或 Fisher 精确检验评估组间报告差异。使用逻辑回归计算 OR 及其 95%CI。PRISMA 清单中所有项目的总报告合规率为 61.3%，报告合规率<50%的项目占总项目的 35.71%。PRISMA-A 中所有项目的总报告符合率为 56.9%，报告符合率<50%的项目占所有项目的 31.25%。发表研究对 PRISMA 或 PRISMA-A 的合规率在期刊引文报告分区（第 1 季度-第 2 季度）和期刊引文报告分区（第 3 季度-第 4 季度）之间没有统计学差异（P>.05）。无论发表的期刊水平如何，在研究细节、研究设计的参考依据、分析方法、严格程度、科学性等方面都存在明显的不足。我们必须加强对研究报告规范化的教育。
