Cited by 145Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesDelphi Technique in Research

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

Open access
Prady, Stephanie L., Richmond, Stewart J., Morton, Veronica M., MacPherson, Hugh·2008·PLoS ONE

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0001577

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Reporting guidelines have been demonstrated to improve reporting of research, thereby allowing consumers of the research to be aware of the strengths, limitations, and accuracy of conclusions.

    “Reporting guidelines have been demonstrated to improve reporting of research, thereby allowing for consumers of the research to be aware of the strengths, limitations, and accuracy of conclusions [12,82–84].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prady, S. L., Richmond, S. J., Morton, V. M., & MacPherson, H.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Prady, Stephanie L.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2008-02-13
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
e1577
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016212358
Cited by
145
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
13.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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, STRICTA, CONSORT, reporting quality, reporting guidelines, randomized controlled trials, pre-post test comparison, guideline implementation
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Acupuncture Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Peer Review, Research

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