Search

Introduction: This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for patients with postoperative pain after laparoscopic surgery. Methods and analysis: We will search the following databases from their inception to October 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), three Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) and the Wanfang database), one Japanese database ( Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator, Electronic ( J-STAGE)) and eight Korean databases (Korean Association of Medical Journal Edition, Korean Medical Database, Korean Studies Information Service System, National Discovery for Science Leaders, Database Periodical Information Academic, Korean National Assembly Digital Library, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System and Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal). All randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for postoperative pain after laparoscopic surgery will be considered for inclusion. The risk of bias and reporting quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA). The risk ratio for dichotomous data and mean difference or standard mean difference for continuous data will be calculated with 95% CIs. Dissemination: The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication or conference presentation. Our findings will summarise the current evidence of acupuncture to treat postoperative pain after laparoscopic surgery, and may provide important guidance for acupuncture usage after laparoscopic surgery for clinicians and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aims to assess the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture in the Korean literature. Design: Systematic review. Methods: We searched 12 Korean databases and 7 Korean journals to identify eligible RCTs of acupuncture published from 1996 to July 2011. We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for parallel RCTs and the revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) to assess the quality of reporting in Korean RCTs. We compared the completeness of reporting of CONSORT and STRICTA items in RCTs published in two time periods (1996-2004 referred to as the early period and 2005-2011 referred to as the late period). Results: We analysed 146 eligible RCTs using the CONSORT statement concerning RCTs of both needling and non-needling acupuncture and the STRICTA guidelines for 90 trials of needling acupuncture. Among the 103 RCTs in the late period, the proportion of RCTs that completely reported the CONSORT items of outcome definition (15.5%), sample size calculation (2.9%), randomisation (56%), allocation concealment (5.8%), implementation of allocation (11.7%), outcome assessor blinding (20.3%), flow of participants (25.2%), number of participants analysed (19.4%), ancillary analyses (0.0%), adverse events (24.3%), generalisability of findings (1.9%) and overall evidence (32.0%) remained small. Among the 61 RCTs of needling acupuncture in the late period, the STRICTA items of setting/context (24.6%) and practitioner background (27.9%) showed incomplete reporting. The completeness of reporting improved over time in several CONSORT and STRICTA items. Conclusions: The completeness of reporting of Korean RCTs of acupuncture was suboptimal according to the CONSORT and revised STRICTA statements. Trial authors and journal editors should use the CONSORT statement and STRICTA guidelines for transparent reporting in Korean RCTs of acupuncture. The endorsement of the CONSORT and revised STRICTA statements in author instructions is also required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: High-quality reporting of treatment details can aid replication of study results in real-world clinical practice. The Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) is a reporting guideline for key elements of acupuncture interventions in clinical trials. This study used STRICTA to investigate whether Cochrane reviews of acupuncture adequately report important treatment details. Design: Systematic review Methods: Cochrane reviews of acupuncture were identified from The Cochrane Library (issue 7, 2012). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the reviews and published after 2005 were obtained. Using STRICTA, we extracted acupuncture-related information from the Cochrane reviews and the RCTs. The characteristics of the included studies' table were the major source of intervention information from Cochrane reviews. Reporting quality of acupuncture interventions in Cochrane reviews was assessed and compared with the respective RCTs. Results: 25 Cochrane reviews of acupuncture and 92 RCTs met the selection criteria. Cochrane reviews were 16% less likely to report the acupuncture-related items of STRICTA than RCTs (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.88, I²=8%). Information was significantly better reported for 10 of the 15 treatment-group items of STRICTA in RCTs than in Cochrane reviews (p<0.05), while four items did so without statistical significance. One item related to practitioner background was significantly better reported in Cochrane reviews. Conclusions: Reporting quality of treatment details in Cochrane reviews of acupuncture was insufficient with regard to STRICTA, even though such information was readily reported in RCTs. The overall quality of reporting of the RCTs, while better than the reviews, was also often suboptimal. Use of STRICTA guideline during the review process is recommended to adequately report the key treatment components in Cochrane reviews of acupuncture. The potential impact of STRICTA to the replicability and utilisation of reviews in future research and practice needs to be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]