Dataset Information

A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We investigated whether there had been an improvement in quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture since the publication of the STRICTA and CONSORT statements. We conducted a before-and-after study, comparing ratings for quality of reporting following the publication of both STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations.

Methodology and principal findings

Ninety peer reviewed journal articles reporting the results of acupuncture trials were selected at random from a wider sample frame of 266 papers. Papers published in three distinct time periods (1994-1995, 1999-2000 and 2004-2005) were compared. Assessment criteria were developed directly from CONSORT and STRICTA checklists. Papers were independently assessed for quality of reporting by two assessors, one of whom was blind to information which could have introduced systematic bias (e.g. date of publication). We detected a statistically significant increase in the reporting of CONSORT items for papers published in each time period measured. We did not, however, find a difference between the number of STRICTA items reported in journal articles published before and 3 to 4 years following the introduction of STRICTA recommendations.

Conclusions and significance

The results of this study suggest that general standards of reporting for acupuncture trials have significantly improved since the introduction of the CONSORT statement in 1996, but that quality in reporting details specific to acupuncture interventions has yet to change following the more recent introduction of STRICTA recommendations. Wider targeting and revision of the guidelines is recommended.

SUBMITTER: Prady SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2216683 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials.

Prady Stephanie L SL Richmond Stewart J SJ Morton Veronica M VM Macpherson Hugh H

PloS one 20080213 2

<h4>Background</h4>We investigated whether there had been an improvement in quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture since the publication of the STRICTA and CONSORT statements. We conducted a before-and-after study, comparing ratings for quality of reporting following the publication of both STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations.<h4>Methodology and principal findings</h4>Ninety peer reviewed journal articles reporting the results of acupuncture trials were selected at ...[more]

PMID: 18270568

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study aims to assess the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture in the Korean literature.Systematic review.We searched 12 Korean databases and 7 Korean journals to identify eligible RCTs of acupuncture published from 1996 to July 2011. We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for parallel RCTs and the revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) to assess the quality of reporting in Korean RCTs. We compared the completeness of reporting of CONSORT and STRICTA items in RCTs published in two time periods (1996-2004 referred to as the early period and 2005-2011 referred to as the late period).We analysed 146 eligible RCTs using the CONSORT statement concerning RCTs of both needling and non-needling acupuncture and the STRICTA guidelines for 90 trials of needling acupuncture. Among the 103 RCTs in the late period, the proportion of RCTs that completely reported the CONSORT items of outcome definition (15.5%), sample size calculation (2.9%), randomisation (56%), allocation concealment (5.8%), implementation of allocation (11.7%), outcome assessor blinding (20.3%), flow of participants (25.2%), number of participants analysed (19.4%), ancillary analyses (0.0%), adverse events (24.3%), generalisability of findings (1.9%) and overall evidence (32.0%) remained small. Among the 61 RCTs of needling acupuncture in the late period, the STRICTA items of setting/context (24.6%) and practitioner background (27.9%) showed incomplete reporting. The completeness of reporting improved over time in several CONSORT and STRICTA items.The completeness of reporting of Korean RCTs of acupuncture was suboptimal according to the CONSORT and revised STRICTA statements. Trial authors and journal editors should use the CONSORT statement and STRICTA guidelines for transparent reporting in Korean RCTs of acupuncture. The endorsement of the CONSORT and revised STRICTA statements in author instructions is also required.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We investigated whether there had been an improvement in the quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture and moxibustion published in Chinese journals. We compared the compliance rate for the quality of reporting following the publication of both the STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations in China. METHODS:Four Chinese databases were searched for RCTs of acupuncture from January 1978 through to December 2012. The CONSORT and STRICTA checklists were used to assess the quality of reporting. Data were collected using a standardised form. All included RCTs were divided into three distinct time periods based on the time that CONSORT and STRICTA were introduced in China, respectively. Pearson's ?2 test and/or Fisher's exact test were used to assess differences in reporting among three groups. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:A total of 1978 RCTs were identified. Although the percentage of all the items has increased over time with the introduction of CONSORT and STRICTA in China, the actual compliance in several important methodological components, including sample size calculation (0% vs. 0% vs. 1.2%, for pre-CONSORT and pre-STRICTA, post-CONSORT but pre-STRICTA, and post-CONSORT and post-STRICTA, respectively), randomisation sequence generation (1.4% vs. 15% vs. 26.3%) and implementation (0% vs. 0% vs. 1.3%), allocation concealment (0% vs. 1.4% vs. 4.9%), and blinding (0% vs. 5.7% vs. 9.1%), remains low. Moreover, no RCTs have reported the setting and context of treatment and no descriptions of the participating acupuncturists have been provided thus far. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the quality of the reporting of RCTs of acupuncture and moxibustion published in Chinese journals has improved since CONSORT and STRICTA were introduced in China, though the actual compliance rate of some important items were still low as of 2012. In the future, Chinese journals should enhance the adoption of the CONSORT and STRICTA statement to improve the reporting quality of the RCTs of acupuncture and moxibustion and to ensure the truth and reliability of the conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundThe QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.ObjectivesTo evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.MethodsWe performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).ResultsOf 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were "protocol and registration", "risk of bias across studies", and "additional analyses" in both methods and results sections.ConclusionsSRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials.DesignMethodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting.Data sourcesA validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8.ResultsThere were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals.ConclusionThe quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.

Dataset Information

A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials.

Background

Methodology and principal findings

Conclusions and significance

Publications

A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets