Background and objectiveTrial registration is widely endorsed as it is considered not only to enhance transparency and quality of reporting but also to help safeguard against outcome reporting bias and probably spin, known as specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results thus mislead readers. We planned to investigate the current registration status of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture, outcome reporting bias in the prospectively registered trials, and the association between trial registration and presence of spin and methodological factors in acupuncture RCTs.MethodsAcupuncture RCTs published in English in recent 5 years (January 2013 to December 2017) were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Trial registration records identified in the publications and trial registries were classified into prospectively registered, retrospectively registered, or unregistered. Primary outcomes were identified and the direction of the results was judged as statistically significant (positive) or statistically nonsignificant (negative). We compared registered and published primary outcomes to assess outcome reporting bias and assessed whether discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes. Frequency and strategies of spin in published reports with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes were then identified. We also analyzed whether the trial registration status was associated with spin and quality of methodological factors.ResultsOf the 322 included RCTs, 41.9% (n = 135) were prospectively registered. Among 64 studies that were prospectively registered and specified primary outcomes, 25 trials had the discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes and 60% of them (15 trials) favored the statistically significant findings. Among 169 studies that specified primary outcomes, trial registration status was not associated with the direction of results, i.e., statistically significant or not. Spin was identified in 56.4% out of 78 studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and claiming efficacy with no consideration of statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes was the most common strategy for spin. Trial registration status was not statistically different between studies with and without spin.ConclusionWhile trial registration seemed to have improved over time, primary outcomes in registered records and publications were often inconsistent, tending to favor statistically significant findings and spin was common in studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes. Journal editors and researchers in this field should be alerted to still prevalent reporting bias and spin.

this study is aimed toward estimating the lifetime risks, life expectancy, expected years of life lost (EYLL), and lifetime costs related to different subtypes of stroke in South Korea. We included 13,994 patients diagnosed with stroke (ICD-10, I60-I63) in the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort of Korea between 2006 and 2015. Lifetime risks were calculated using the cumulative incidence rate for patients aged 18-84. Lifetime survival data were obtained through the Kaplan-Meier method and extrapolated with a rolling-over extrapolation algorithm. The lifetime costs were estimated by multiplying the average monthly expenditures with the survival probabilities and adding the values over lifetime. The lifetime risks of stroke in Korea have been decreasing consistently over the last decade with the exception of subarachnoid hemorrhage in females, which appears to have slightly increased. The EYLL is higher in hemorrhagic stroke than in ischemic stroke (6-9.7 vs. 4.7).

Objective The description of controls is important in acupuncture clinical trials to interpret its effectiveness without fallacy. This paper aims to evaluate the reporting quality of acupuncture studies on the characteristics of sham needles. Study design and setting Using a checklist developed from previously published reporting guidelines, the distribution of reported items and changes of reporting rates over time were investigated. Two-way ANOVA and linear regression were conducted. Results Original articles of RCTs of any design involving sham needles as controls were eligible for assessment. 117 trials from three 2-year time periods between 2009 and 2018 were included. Seven items out of 25 were reported in more than 50% of the studies. While significant differences of reporting scores among categories were observed, there were no significant differences among time periods; no significant improvement was observed over time. Conclusions Low reporting qualities of sham needles used in acupuncture studies may influence how researchers understand the effectiveness of acupuncture. This study evaluated previous publications from 2009 to 2018 and found that reporting qualities on sham needles did not improve over time. Further studies are required to validate the items used in this study to endorse better reporting of controls in acupuncture trials.

No abstract