Incomplete reporting and spin in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.

IF 9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yuting Duan, Pinge Zhao, Yuening Deng, Zhirui Xu, Siqi Wu, Lin Shi, Feng Jiang, Shujuan Liu, Xinyu Li, Binbin Tang, Jinjin Zhou, Lin Yu
{"title":"Incomplete reporting and spin in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.","authors":"Yuting Duan, Pinge Zhao, Yuening Deng, Zhirui Xu, Siqi Wu, Lin Shi, Feng Jiang, Shujuan Liu, Xinyu Li, Binbin Tang, Jinjin Zhou, Lin Yu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the reporting, data sharing and spin (using reporting strategies to emphasise the benefit of non-significant results) in acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Eligible studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP Database between 1 January 2014 and 1 May 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Peer-reviewed acupuncture RCTs used traditional medicine (TM), published in English or Chinese, two parallel arms for humans.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>We assessed (1) the reporting of acupuncture RCTs by the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement and STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) checklist; (2) the data sharing level by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data sharing statement; (3) spin frequency and level by the prespecified spin strategies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study evaluated 476 eligible studies, of which 166 (34.9%) explored the specific efficacy or safety of acupuncture in the nervous system, 68 (14.3%) in the motor system and 61 (12.8%) in the digestive system. 244 (57.7%) studies used conventional acupuncture, 296 (62.2%) used multicentre study design and 369 (77.5%) were supported by institutional funding. 312 (65.5%) eligible studies were poorly reported. The sufficiently reporting scores of the CONSORT 2010 statement and the STRICTA checklist differed from 0.63% to 97.5%, and 32 (59.3%) items were less than 50%. For the data sharing level of acupuncture RCTs, only 66 (17.2%) studies followed the ICMJE data sharing statement, but 49 (14.5%) need to require authors to obtain data, and only 5 (1.5%) provided data by open access. Spins were identified in 408 (85.7%) studies (average spin frequencies: 2.94). 59 (37.2%) studies with non-significant primary outcomes had spin levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that the reporting of acupuncture RCTs was low compliance with the CONSORT 2010 statement, the STRICTA checklist and the ICMJE data sharing statement, and spin appeared frequently. Journal policies on using reporting guidelines, data sharing and equitable consideration of non-significant results might enhance the reporting of acupuncture RCTs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>This study was registered at the Open Science Framework (OSF): (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2WTE6, and https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9XDN4,).</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113364","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the reporting, data sharing and spin (using reporting strategies to emphasise the benefit of non-significant results) in acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Design: Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.

Data sources: Eligible studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP Database between 1 January 2014 and 1 May 2024.

Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed acupuncture RCTs used traditional medicine (TM), published in English or Chinese, two parallel arms for humans.

Main outcome measures: We assessed (1) the reporting of acupuncture RCTs by the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement and STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) checklist; (2) the data sharing level by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data sharing statement; (3) spin frequency and level by the prespecified spin strategies.

Results: This study evaluated 476 eligible studies, of which 166 (34.9%) explored the specific efficacy or safety of acupuncture in the nervous system, 68 (14.3%) in the motor system and 61 (12.8%) in the digestive system. 244 (57.7%) studies used conventional acupuncture, 296 (62.2%) used multicentre study design and 369 (77.5%) were supported by institutional funding. 312 (65.5%) eligible studies were poorly reported. The sufficiently reporting scores of the CONSORT 2010 statement and the STRICTA checklist differed from 0.63% to 97.5%, and 32 (59.3%) items were less than 50%. For the data sharing level of acupuncture RCTs, only 66 (17.2%) studies followed the ICMJE data sharing statement, but 49 (14.5%) need to require authors to obtain data, and only 5 (1.5%) provided data by open access. Spins were identified in 408 (85.7%) studies (average spin frequencies: 2.94). 59 (37.2%) studies with non-significant primary outcomes had spin levels.

Conclusions: This study found that the reporting of acupuncture RCTs was low compliance with the CONSORT 2010 statement, the STRICTA checklist and the ICMJE data sharing statement, and spin appeared frequently. Journal policies on using reporting guidelines, data sharing and equitable consideration of non-significant results might enhance the reporting of acupuncture RCTs.

Trial registration number: This study was registered at the Open Science Framework (OSF): (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2WTE6, and https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9XDN4,).

针灸随机对照试验的不完整报告和自旋:一项横断面荟萃流行病学研究。
目的:调查针灸随机对照试验(RCTs)中的报告、数据共享和spin(使用报告策略来强调非显著结果的益处)。设计:横断面荟萃流行病学研究。数据来源:2014年1月1日至2024年5月1日在MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、CBM、CNKI、万方数据和VIP数据库中检索的符合条件的研究。入选标准:同行评议的针灸随机对照试验使用传统医学(TM),以英文或中文发表,人类两组平行。主要结局指标:我们评估(1)针灸随机对照试验报告综合标准(CONSORT) 2010声明和针灸临床试验干预报告标准(STRICTA)清单;(2)国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)数据共享声明的数据共享水平;(3)自旋频率和水平由预先设定的自旋策略决定。结果:本研究共评估了476项符合条件的研究,其中166项(34.9%)研究探讨了针刺对神经系统的特异性疗效或安全性,68项(14.3%)研究探讨了运动系统,61项(12.8%)研究探讨了消化系统。244项(57.7%)研究采用传统针灸,296项(62.2%)采用多中心研究设计,369项(77.5%)采用机构资助。312项(65.5%)符合条件的研究报告不足。CONSORT 2010声明和STRICTA检查表的充分报告得分从0.63%到97.5%不等,有32项(59.3%)低于50%。在针灸rct的数据共享水平上,只有66项(17.2%)研究遵循了ICMJE数据共享声明,但49项(14.5%)研究需要作者获取数据,只有5项(1.5%)研究采用开放获取方式提供数据。自旋在408项(85.7%)研究中被发现(平均自旋频率:2.94)。59项(37.2%)无显著主要结局的研究有自旋水平。结论:本研究发现针灸rct报告对CONSORT 2010声明、STRICTA清单和ICMJE数据共享声明的符合性较低,spin频繁出现。期刊关于使用报告指南、数据共享和公平考虑非显著结果的政策可能会加强针灸随机对照试验的报告。试验注册号:本研究在开放科学框架(OSF)注册:(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2WTE6, and https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9XDN4,)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence. BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信