Specification of interventions and selection of controls in randomized controlled trials of acupuncture: a cross-sectional survey.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-30 DOI:10.1177/09645284221117848
Jiali Liu, Ling Li, Xiaochao Luo, Xuan Qin, Ling Zhao, Jiping Zhao, Xu Zhou, Yanmei Liu, Ke Deng, Yu Ma, Kang Zou, Xin Sun
{"title":"Specification of interventions and selection of controls in randomized controlled trials of acupuncture: a cross-sectional survey.","authors":"Jiali Liu,&nbsp;Ling Li,&nbsp;Xiaochao Luo,&nbsp;Xuan Qin,&nbsp;Ling Zhao,&nbsp;Jiping Zhao,&nbsp;Xu Zhou,&nbsp;Yanmei Liu,&nbsp;Ke Deng,&nbsp;Yu Ma,&nbsp;Kang Zou,&nbsp;Xin Sun","doi":"10.1177/09645284221117848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Specification of interventions and selection of controls are two methodological determinants for a successful acupuncture trial. However, current practice with respect to these two determinants is not fully understood. Thus, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine the specification of interventions and selection of controls among published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture.</p><p><strong>Study design and setting: </strong>We searched PubMed for acupuncture RCTs published in core clinical journals and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) journals from January 2010 to December 2019 (10 years) and included RCTs that assessed treatment effects of acupuncture versus any type of control. We used network meta-analyses to explore whether there were differential treatment effects in patients with chronic pain when using sham acupuncture as a control versus using waiting list or no treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most of the 319 eligible RCTs specified well the style of acupuncture (86.8%), traditional acupuncture point locations (96.2%), type of needle stimulation (90.3%) and needle retention time (85.6%). However, other acupuncture details were less-frequently specified, including response sought (65.5%), needle manipulation (50.5%), number of needle insertions (21.9%), angle and direction of insertion (31.3%), patient posture (32.3%) and co-interventions (22.9%). Sham acupuncture (41.4%) was the most frequently used control, followed by waiting list or no treatment (32.9%). There was no differential treatment effect when using sham acupuncture versus waiting list/no treatment as a control (standardized mean difference = -0.15, 95% confidence interval: -0.91 to 0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Over a decade of research practice, important gaps have remained in the specification of acupuncture interventions, including response sought, needle manipulation, and co-interventions. While sham acupuncture has been widely used, waiting list or no treatment may also be considered as an appropriate control.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09645284221117848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Specification of interventions and selection of controls are two methodological determinants for a successful acupuncture trial. However, current practice with respect to these two determinants is not fully understood. Thus, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine the specification of interventions and selection of controls among published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture.

Study design and setting: We searched PubMed for acupuncture RCTs published in core clinical journals and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) journals from January 2010 to December 2019 (10 years) and included RCTs that assessed treatment effects of acupuncture versus any type of control. We used network meta-analyses to explore whether there were differential treatment effects in patients with chronic pain when using sham acupuncture as a control versus using waiting list or no treatment.

Results: Most of the 319 eligible RCTs specified well the style of acupuncture (86.8%), traditional acupuncture point locations (96.2%), type of needle stimulation (90.3%) and needle retention time (85.6%). However, other acupuncture details were less-frequently specified, including response sought (65.5%), needle manipulation (50.5%), number of needle insertions (21.9%), angle and direction of insertion (31.3%), patient posture (32.3%) and co-interventions (22.9%). Sham acupuncture (41.4%) was the most frequently used control, followed by waiting list or no treatment (32.9%). There was no differential treatment effect when using sham acupuncture versus waiting list/no treatment as a control (standardized mean difference = -0.15, 95% confidence interval: -0.91 to 0.62).

Conclusion: Over a decade of research practice, important gaps have remained in the specification of acupuncture interventions, including response sought, needle manipulation, and co-interventions. While sham acupuncture has been widely used, waiting list or no treatment may also be considered as an appropriate control.

针灸随机对照试验中干预措施的说明和对照的选择:一项横断面调查。
目的:干预措施的说明和对照的选择是针灸试验成功的两个方法学决定因素。然而,目前关于这两个决定因素的实践还没有完全理解。因此,我们进行了一项横断面调查,以检查已发表的针灸随机对照试验(rct)的干预措施规范和对照选择。研究设计和设置:我们在PubMed检索了2010年1月至2019年12月(10年)在核心临床期刊和补充和替代医学(CAM)期刊上发表的针灸随机对照试验,并纳入了评估针灸治疗效果与任何类型对照的随机对照试验。我们使用网络荟萃分析来探讨在慢性疼痛患者中,使用假针灸作为对照与使用等候名单治疗或不治疗是否有不同的治疗效果。结果:319项符合条件的随机对照试验中,大多数对针刺方式(86.8%)、传统穴位位置(96.2%)、针刺刺激方式(90.3%)和留针时间(85.6%)有较好的描述。然而,其他针灸细节较少被提及,包括寻求缓解(65.5%)、针刺手法(50.5%)、针刺次数(21.9%)、针刺角度和方向(31.3%)、患者姿势(32.3%)和联合干预(22.9%)。假针灸(41.4%)是最常用的对照,其次是等候名单或不治疗(32.9%)。使用假针灸与等候名单/未治疗作为对照时,没有差异治疗效果(标准化平均差= -0.15,95%置信区间:-0.91至0.62)。结论:在十多年的研究实践中,在针灸干预措施的规范方面仍然存在重要的空白,包括寻求反应、针刺操作和联合干预。虽然假针灸已被广泛使用,但等待治疗或不治疗也可视为适当的对照。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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