Review finds suboptimal reporting of trials on nonpharmacological therapies in Chinese medicine

Nonpharmacological treatments in Chinese medicine (NPTCM), including acupuncture, cupping, moxibustion, and Tuina, have gained global recognition for their efficacy in various health conditions. However, the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on these interventions has been suboptimal, with many lacking sufficient descriptions of interventions, blinding details, and exhibiting significant interstudy heterogeneity.

This has led to the development of CONSORT extension guidelines, including STRICTA for acupuncture, STRICTOM for moxibustion, STRICTOC for cupping, and STRICTOTM for Tuina/massage, aiming to standardize the reporting of NPTCM trials.

Despite these guidelines, adherence has been variable, with significant room for improvement in the reporting quality of RCTs, particularly in the areas of treatment regimens, practitioner background, and safety assessments.

A new review published in Frontiers of Medicine has analyzed RCTs that were published in 2022 to assess the reporting quality of NPTCM interventions based on the respective CONSORT extensions. A total of 387 eligible RCTs were identified, with the majority published in Chinese journals.

The review revealed that while acupuncture trials had the highest reporting rate at 62.6%, Tuina/massage trials had the lowest at 47.9%. The reporting of treatment regimens was relatively high at 79.9%, but the reporting of practitioner background was alarmingly low at 14.9%.

Subgroup analysis showed that publications in English had a significantly higher reporting score than those in Chinese. The review also identified major deficiencies in the reporting of safety assessments, the incorporation of CM patterns in trial design, and the implementation of blinding in NPTCM trials.

The review highlights the need for enhanced reporting of safety assessments, standardized reporting of CM pattern-related diagnostic criteria and outcomes, and more research into the reasons for poor reporting of certain items such as treatment environment and provider background information. It recommends that journals strengthen their endorsement of reporting guidelines, particularly for Chinese journals, to improve the quality of NPTCM interventional studies.

The review concludes that while progress has been made in adhering to reporting guidelines, there is a pressing need for further improvement to ensure accurate documentation and enhance the quality and reliability of research in the field of NPTCM.

Provided by
Frontiers Journals

Nonpharmacological treatments in Chinese medicine (NPTCM), including acupuncture, cupping, moxibustion, and Tuina, have gained global recognition for their efficacy in various health conditions. However, the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on these interventions has been suboptimal, with many lacking sufficient descriptions of interventions, blinding details, and exhibiting significant interstudy heterogeneity.

This has led to the development of CONSORT extension guidelines, including STRICTA for acupuncture, STRICTOM for moxibustion, STRICTOC for cupping, and STRICTOTM for Tuina/massage, aiming to standardize the reporting of NPTCM trials.

Despite these guidelines, adherence has been variable, with significant room for improvement in the reporting quality of RCTs, particularly in the areas of treatment regimens, practitioner background, and safety assessments.

A new review published in Frontiers of Medicine has analyzed RCTs that were published in 2022 to assess the reporting quality of NPTCM interventions based on the respective CONSORT extensions. A total of 387 eligible RCTs were identified, with the majority published in Chinese journals.

The review revealed that while acupuncture trials had the highest reporting rate at 62.6%, Tuina/massage trials had the lowest at 47.9%. The reporting of treatment regimens was relatively high at 79.9%, but the reporting of practitioner background was alarmingly low at 14.9%.

Subgroup analysis showed that publications in English had a significantly higher reporting score than those in Chinese. The review also identified major deficiencies in the reporting of safety assessments, the incorporation of CM patterns in trial design, and the implementation of blinding in NPTCM trials.

The review highlights the need for enhanced reporting of safety assessments, standardized reporting of CM pattern-related diagnostic criteria and outcomes, and more research into the reasons for poor reporting of certain items such as treatment environment and provider background information. It recommends that journals strengthen their endorsement of reporting guidelines, particularly for Chinese journals, to improve the quality of NPTCM interventional studies.

The review concludes that while progress has been made in adhering to reporting guidelines, there is a pressing need for further improvement to ensure accurate documentation and enhance the quality and reliability of research in the field of NPTCM.

Provided by
Frontiers Journals