Dataset Information

Risk of bias and methodological issues in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess risk of bias and to investigate methodological issues concerning the design, conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and four major Chinese databases were searched for RCTs that investigated the effect of acupuncture for KOA. The Cochrane tool was used to examine the risk of bias of eligible RCTs. Their methodological details were examined using a standardised and pilot-tested questionnaire of 48 items, together with the association between four predefined factors and important methodological quality indicators.

Results

A total of 248 RCTs were eligible, of which 39 (15.7%) used computer-generated randomisation sequence. Of the 31 (12.5%) trials that stated the allocation concealment, only one used central randomisation. Twenty-five (10.1%) trials mentioned that their acupuncture procedures were standardised, but only 18 (7.3%) specified how the standardisation was achieved. The great majority of trials (n=233, 94%) stated that blinding was in place, but 204 (87.6%) did not clarify who was blinded. Only 27 (10.9%) trials specified the primary outcome, for which 7 used intention-to-treat analysis. Only 17 (6.9%) trials included details on sample size calculation; none preplanned an interim analysis and associated stopping rule. In total, 46 (18.5%) trials explicitly stated that loss to follow-up occurred, but only 6 (2.4%) provided some information to deal with the issue. No trials prespecified, conducted or reported any subgroup or adjusted analysis for the primary outcome.

Conclusion

The overall risk of bias was high among published RCTs testing acupuncture for KOA. Methodological limitations were present in many important aspects of design, conduct and analyses. These findings inform the development of evidence-based methodological guidance for future trials assessing the effect of acupuncture for KOA.

SUBMITTER: Jia P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5855180 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk of bias and methodological issues in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.

Jia Pengli P Tang Li L Yu Jiajie J Lee Andy H AH Zhou Xu X Kang Deying D Luo Yanan Y Liu Jiali J Sun Xin X

BMJ open 20180306 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess risk of bias and to investigate methodological issues concerning the design, conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and four major Chinese databases were searched for RCTs that investigated the effect of acupuncture for KOA. The Cochrane tool was used to examine the risk of bias of eligible RCTs. Their methodological det ...[more]

PMID: 29511016

Similar Datasets

Project description:To assess the reporting quality of acupuncture trials for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and explore the factors associated with the reporting.Three English and four Chinese databases were searched from inception to December 2016 for randomized control trials testing effects of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis. We used the standard CONSORT (2010 version), CONSORT Extension for Non-Pharmacological Treatments, and STRICTA for measuring the quality of reporting. Using pre-specified study characteristics, we undertook regression analyses to examine factors associated with the reporting quality.A total of 318 RCT reports were included. For the standard CONSORT, ten items were substantially under-reported (reported in less than 5% of RCTs), including specification of important changes to methods after trial commencement (0.6%), description of any changes to trial outcomes (0.0%), implementation of interim analyses and stopping guidelines (0.6%), statement about why the trial ended or was stopped (1.6%), statement about the registration status (4.4%), accessibility of full trial protocol (4.7%), implementation of randomization (4.7%), description of the similarity of interventions (3.5%), conduct of ancillary analyses (3.8%) and presentation of methods for additional analyses (4.4%). Four of the STRICTA items were under-reported (reported in less than 10% of RCTs), including description of acupuncture style (8.5%), presentation of extent to which treatment varied (1.3%), statement of practitioner background (7.2%) and rationale for the control (9.1%). For CONSORT Extension, the reporting was poor across all items (reported in less than 10% of trials). Trials including authors with expertise in epidemiology or statistics, published in English, or enrolling patients from multiple centers were more likely to have better reporting.The reporting in RCTs of acupuncture for KOA was generally poor. To improve the reporting quality, journals should encourage strict adherence to the reporting guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundWhile well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide the best evidence on the potential effectiveness of acupuncture, limitations on the methodological rigour of SRs may impact the trustworthiness of their conclusions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on acupuncture effectiveness.MethodsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for SRs focusing on the treatment effect of manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture published during January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible SRs must contain at least one meta-analysis and be published in English language. Two independent reviewers extracted the bibliographical characteristics of the included SRs with a pre-designed questionnaire and appraised the methodological quality of the studies with the validated AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). The associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were explored using Kruskal-Wallis rank tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.ResultsA total of 106 SRs were appraised. Only one (0.9%) SR was of high overall methodological quality, zero (0%) was of moderate-quality, six (5.7%) and 99 (93.4%) were of low-quality and critically low-quality respectively. Among appraised SRs, only ten (9.4%) provided an a priori protocol, four (3.8%) conducted a comprehensive literature search, five (4.7%) provided a list of excluded studies, and six (5.7%) performed meta-analysis appropriately. Cochrane SRs, updated SRs, and SRs that did not search non-English databases had relatively higher overall quality.ConclusionsMethodological quality of SRs on acupuncture is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve critical methodological aspects of publishing protocols, performing comprehensive search, providing a list of excluded studies with justifications for exclusion, and conducting appropriate meta-analyses. These recommendations can be implemented via enhancing the technical competency of reviewers in SR methodology through established education approaches as well as quality gatekeeping by journal editors and reviewers. Finally, for evidence users, skills in SR critical appraisal remain to be essential as relevant evidence may not be available in pre-appraised formats.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of adding acupuncture to a course of advice and exercise delivered by physiotherapists for pain reduction in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 37 physiotherapy centres accepting primary care patients referred from general practitioners in the Midlands, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 352 adults aged 50 or more with a clinical diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTIONS: Advice and exercise (n=116), advice and exercise plus true acupuncture (n=117), and advice and exercise plus non-penetrating acupuncture (n=119). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in scores on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index pain subscale at six months. Secondary outcomes included function, pain intensity, and unpleasantness of pain at two weeks, six weeks, six months, and 12 months. RESULTS: Follow-up rate at six months was 94%. The mean (SD) baseline pain score was 9.2 (3.8). At six months mean reductions in pain were 2.28 (3.8) for advice and exercise, 2.32 (3.6) for advice and exercise plus true acupuncture, and 2.53 (4.2) for advice and exercise plus non-penetrating acupuncture. Mean differences in change scores between advice and exercise alone and each acupuncture group were 0.08 (95% confidence interval -1.0 to 0.9) for advice and exercise plus true acupuncture and 0.25 (-0.8 to 1.3) for advice and exercise plus non-penetrating acupuncture. Similar non-significant differences were seen at other follow-up points. Compared with advice and exercise alone there were small, statistically significant improvements in pain intensity and unpleasantness at two and six weeks for true acupuncture and at all follow-up points for non-penetrating acupuncture. CONCLUSION: The addition of acupuncture to a course of advice and exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee delivered by physiotherapists provided no additional improvement in pain scores. Small benefits in pain intensity and unpleasantness were observed in both acupuncture groups, making it unlikely that this was due to acupuncture needling effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88597683 [controlled-trials.com] .

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is a lack of curative medical treatment for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Acupuncture represents an important alternative therapy. According to the theory of traditional Chinese medicine and preliminary clinical evidence, the patients' acupoints and tender points may become sensitised when the body suffers from a disease state; stimulation of such sensitive points could lead to a disease improvement. It is thus hypothesised that acupuncture at highly sensitised points on patients with KOA would achieve better treatment outcomes than acupuncture at low/non-sensitised points. Previously, we conducted a pilot trial to prove the feasibility of further investigation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A three-arm, parallel, multicentre randomised controlled trial of 666 patients will be conducted at four hospitals of China. Eligible patients with KOA who consent to participate will be randomly assigned to a high-sensitisation group (patients receive acupuncture treatment at high-sensitive points), a low/non-sensitisation group (patients receive acupuncture treatment at low/non-sensitive points) or a waiting-list group (patients receive standard acupuncture treatment after the study is concluded) via a central randomisation system using 1:1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the change of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score from baseline to 16 weeks. Outcome assessors and data analysts will be blinded and participants will be asked not to reveal their allocation to assessors. The outcome analyses will be performed both on the intention-to-treat and per-protocol population. The primary analyses will test if acupuncture at highly sensitised points would achieve statistically better treatment outcomes than acupuncture at low/non-sensitised points and no acupuncture (ie, waiting list), respectively. A small number of prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval has been granted by the Bioethics Subcommittee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University: 2017 (Number 228). Results will be expected to be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03299439.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare providers need reliable evidence for supporting the adoption of new interventions, of which the source of evidence often originates from systematic reviews (SRs). However, little assessment on the rigor of SRs related to osteoarthritis interventions has been conducted. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and predictors among SRs on osteoarthritis interventions.MethodsFour electronic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) were searched, from 1 January 2008 to 10 October 2019. An SR was eligible if it focused on osteoarthritis interventions, and we performed at least one meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR 2 instrument. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to assess predictors of methodological quality.ResultsIn total, 167 SRs were included. The most SRs were non-Cochrane reviews (88.6%), and 54.5% investigated non-pharmacological interventions. Only seven (4.2%) had high methodological quality. Respectively, eight (4.8%), 25 (15.0%), and 127 (76.0%) SRs had moderate, low, and critically low quality. Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: only 16.8% registered protocol a priori, 4.2% searched literature comprehensively, 25.7% included lists of excluded studies with justifications, and 30.5% assessed risk of bias appropriately by considering allocation concealment, blinding of patients and assessors, random sequence generation and selective reported outcomes. Cochrane reviews [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 251.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 35.5-1782.6], being updates of previous SRs (AOR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1-13.7), and SRs published after 2017 (AOR 7.7, 95% CI 2.8-21.5) were positively related to higher methodological quality.ConclusionDespite signs of improvement in recent years, most of the SRs on osteoarthritis interventions have critically low methodological quality, especially among non-Cochrane reviews. Future SRs should be improved by conducting comprehensive literature search, justifying excluded studies, publishing a protocol, and assessing the risk of bias of included studies appropriately.

Dataset Information

Risk of bias and methodological issues in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Risk of bias and methodological issues in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets