Completeness of reporting acupuncture interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Review of adherence to the STRICTA statement

Abstract

Background: The completeness of reporting of acupuncture interventions is critical to ensure the applicability and reproducibility of acupuncture clinical trials. In the past, different publications have evaluated the completeness of reporting of acupuncture interventions for different clinical situations, such as knee osteoarthritis, neurological diseases or cancer. However, this has not been done for acupuncture trials for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objective: To assess the completeness of reporting of acupuncture interventions in trials for COPD. Methods: A total of 11 English and Chinese databases were screened up until May 2019 for randomised or quasi-randomised control trials of acupuncture for COPD. The STRICTA checklist was used to determine the quality of the reporting of acupuncture interventions. Results: A total of 28 trials were included in our review. Out of the 16 STRICTA checklist subitems analysed, only 4 were considered appropriately reported in more than 70% of the trials, while 7 were correctly reported in less than 30%. Conclusion: The adherence to STRICTA guidelines of acupuncture trials for COPD is suboptimal, and future efforts need to be addressed to improve the completeness of reporting.

Assessment of Completeness of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

“…The binary classification criteria of reported and unreported, defined by most previous studies, were adopted. Fernández-Jané et al 33 pointed out that the actual number of treatments almost never explicitly in all trials, which was quite different from our findings. However, consistent with several studies, 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 31 , 32 , 36 2 items in the treatment regimen domain were adequately reported.…”

“…As is often recognized, the manipulation, qualification, and professional skill of acupuncturists have a close bearing on the efficacy of acupuncture. 37 Worse still, consistent with most studies, 12 , 15 , 33 , 38 the reporting rates of practitioner background and setting and context of treatment were severely deficient. They may have a certain effect on the accuracy and specific implementation of interventions.…”

“…The completeness of reporting based on CONSORT and STRICTA is almost the same as that in previous literature because of analogously defined reporting evaluation criteria. However, compared with the study of Fernández-Jané et al, 33 significant differences exist in the report of certain items according to the STRICTA guidelines. We preliminarily consider that the reporting standard, according to Fernández-Jané et al, 33 may be inconsistent with that of the previous study, which is divided into fully reported, partially reported, and unreported.…”

“…However, compared with the study of Fernández-Jané et al, 33 significant differences exist in the report of certain items according to the STRICTA guidelines. We preliminarily consider that the reporting standard, according to Fernández-Jané et al, 33 may be inconsistent with that of the previous study, which is divided into fully reported, partially reported, and unreported. Another more important point is that CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines describe the details of checklist, and do not clearly define the basis of judgement for reported and unreported.…”

“…Our assessment standard was that any literature describing the planned number of treatment sessions was considered reported, regardless of the actual number of treatments received by participants. The completeness of reporting of acupoint names or locations also varied from the study of Fernández-Jané et al, 33 mainly due to inconsistent assessment criteria of each study. However, the similarity of assessment results between these two items and most literature 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 31 , 32 , 36 is remarkable, especially the name of acupoint with the highest reporting rate (100%), which is consistent with findings from several literature.…”