Cargando…

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion

BACKGROUND: Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tian, Ran, Zhang, Xuan, Li, Si-Yao, Aixinjueluo, Qi-Ying, Lam, Wai Ching, Bian, Zhao-Xiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7526112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33005215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13020-020-00385-z
_version_ 1783588809059860480
author Tian, Ran
Zhang, Xuan
Li, Si-Yao
Aixinjueluo, Qi-Ying
Lam, Wai Ching
Bian, Zhao-Xiang
author_facet Tian, Ran
Zhang, Xuan
Li, Si-Yao
Aixinjueluo, Qi-Ying
Lam, Wai Ching
Bian, Zhao-Xiang
author_sort Tian, Ran
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported. METHODS: Seven databases (including four English and three Chinese databases) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 14-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion (STRICTOM). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 55%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of “PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions” should be developed thus to improve their quality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7526112
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75261122020-09-30 Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion Tian, Ran Zhang, Xuan Li, Si-Yao Aixinjueluo, Qi-Ying Lam, Wai Ching Bian, Zhao-Xiang Chin Med Research BACKGROUND: Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported. METHODS: Seven databases (including four English and three Chinese databases) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 14-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion (STRICTOM). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 55%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of “PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions” should be developed thus to improve their quality. BioMed Central 2020-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7526112/ /pubmed/33005215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13020-020-00385-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Tian, Ran
Zhang, Xuan
Li, Si-Yao
Aixinjueluo, Qi-Ying
Lam, Wai Ching
Bian, Zhao-Xiang
Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion
title Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion
title_full Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion
title_fullStr Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion
title_full_unstemmed Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion
title_short Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion
title_sort reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7526112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33005215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13020-020-00385-z
work_keys_str_mv AT tianran reportingqualityofsystematicreviewswithmoxibustion
AT zhangxuan reportingqualityofsystematicreviewswithmoxibustion
AT lisiyao reportingqualityofsystematicreviewswithmoxibustion
AT aixinjueluoqiying reportingqualityofsystematicreviewswithmoxibustion
AT lamwaiching reportingqualityofsystematicreviewswithmoxibustion
AT bianzhaoxiang reportingqualityofsystematicreviewswithmoxibustion