Cited by 16Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesDelphi Technique in Research

Impact evaluation of CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines on reporting quality for randomized controlled trials of acupuncture conducted in China

Lu, Li-ming, He, Jun, Zeng, Jing-chun, Liao, Mu-xi, Jia, Chao, Pan, Hai-hua·2017·Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine

Abstract

Objective To evaluate and compare the reports' qualities of acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China before and after the implementation of two guidelines, i.e., the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).Methods Proportions of studies that reported CONSORT and STRICTA items were compared for the years before and after implementation of these two guidelines. In addition, the total score of each item's reporting were calculated and reported differences during different date ranges were compared.Results For CONSORT items (maximum score 8), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined (2.5±0.6) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined (3.0±0.9; difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 0.6, P<0.01). For STRICTA items (maximum score 17), there was evidence that a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined (8.6±2.1) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined (10.1±1.8; difference 1.5, 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.9, P<0.01).Conclusion Quality of reporting for RCTs of acupuncture treatment conducted in China have generally improved since the introduction of the STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11655-016-2451-z

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Lu, L.-M., He, J., Zeng, J.-C., Liao, M.-X., Jia, C., & Pan, H.-H.
Affiliations
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (CN)
Corresponding author
He, Jun
ORCID
He, Jun
Venue
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
Published
2016-03-21
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
10-17
ISSN
  • 1672-0415 (ISSN-L)
  • 1993-0402
OpenAlex
W2315670380
Cited by
16
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Acupuncture Treatment Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
acupuncture, randomized controlled trials, reporting quality, CONSORT statement, STRICTA, reporting guidelines, guideline implementation, China, research quality improvement
MeSH terms
China, Humans, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review