Search

ObjectiveTo identify factors and assess to what extent they impact the magnitude of the treatment effect of acupuncture therapies across therapeutic areas.Data sourceMedline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc, between 2015 and 2019.Study selectionThe inclusion criteria were trials with a total number of randomised patients larger than 100, at least one patient-important outcome and one of two sets of comparisons.Data analysisThe potential independent variables were identified by reviewing relevant literature and consulting with experts. We conducted meta-regression analyses with standardised mean difference (SMD) as effect estimate for the dependent variable. The analyses included univariable meta-regression and multivariable meta-regression using a three-level robust mixed model.Results1304 effect estimates from 584 acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were analysed. The multivariable analyses contained 15 independent variables . In the multivariable analysis, the following produced larger treatment effects of large magnitude (>0.4): quality of life (difference of adjusted SMDs 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77), or pain (0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69), or function (0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61) vs major events. The following produced larger treatment effects of moderate magnitude (0.2–0.4): single-centred vs multicentred RCTs (0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66); penetration acupuncture vs non-penetration types of acupuncture (0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53); non-pain symptoms vs major events (0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.52). The following produced larger treatment effects of small magnitude (ConclusionPatients, clinicians and policy-makers should consider penetrating over non-penetrating acupuncture and more frequent treatment sessions when feasible and acceptable. When designing future acupuncture RCTs, trialists should consider factors that impact acupuncture treatment effects.

This systematic review evaluated the rigor of the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). The searched sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and specific databases of CPG. Reviewers, organized in triplicate and independently, selected the studies and assessed the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument, which contains six domains for classification. The classification of the CPGs prioritized the domain 3 (developmental rigor) considering: high (score > 60%), moderate (score 30–60%), or low quality (score