Overall Reporting Descriptions of Acupuncture for Chronic Pain in Randomized Controlled Trials in English Journals

Na Zhang,1,2 Jian-Feng Tu,1 Ying Lin,1 Jin-Ling Li,1 Xuan Zou,1 Yu Wang,1 Hewen Li,1 Xiao-Ya Wei,1 Li-Qiong Wang,1 Guang-Xia Shi,1 Shi-Yan Yan,1 Cun-Zhi Liu1 1International Acupuncture and Moxibustion Innovation Institute, School of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 2School of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Shandong University of Chinese Medicine, Shandong, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Guang-Xia Shi; Shi-Yan Yan Email shiguangxia2008@126.com; yanshiyan0927@sina.comBackground: Whether the clinical effect of acupuncture in chronic pain is effective has always been a hot topic of research, which has a great relationship with the overall reporting descriptions of acupuncture, especially the sham acupuncture intervention. To confirm the effectiveness of acupuncture, more clinical studies are often required. Therefore, it is necessary to report high-quality and complete descriptions of acupuncture in clinical trials. This study aims to assess the overall reporting quality of acupuncture for chronic pain in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods: Three databases from inception to March 2020 were searched, to assess the quality of acupuncture reports included the RCTs based on the pain-specific supplement to Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines. The quality of sham acupuncture descriptions was evaluated based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR)-placebo checklist. Descriptive statistics and analysis of the results were carried out according to the percentage of each item.Results: A total of 74 RCTs were included which met the inclusion criteria. Based on the pain-specific CONSORT, the reporting rates of “Statistical methods”, “Participant flow”, and “Blinding” were “ 52.70%”, “ 70.27%”, and “ 77.03%”