The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of electroacupuncture for stroke

• Published in: BMC complementary and alternative medicine Vol. 16; no. 1; p. 512
• Main Authors: Wei, Jing-Jing, Yang, Wen-Ting, Yin, Su-Bing, Wang, Chen, Wang, Yan, Zheng, Guo-Qing
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 09.12.2016; BioMed Central
• Subjects: Care and treatment; Clinical trials; Electroacupuncture; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards; Risk factors; Stroke (Disease); Stroke - therapy; Stroke; Electroacupuncture; Methodology; Randomized controlled trial
• ISSN: 1472-6882; 1472-6882
• DOI: 10.1186/s12906-016-1497-y

Electroacupuncture (EA), as an extension technique of acupuncture based on traditional acupuncture combined with modern electrotherapy, is commonly used for stroke in clinical treatment and researches. However, there is still a lack of enough evidence to recommend the routine use of EA for stroke. This study is aimed at evaluating the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on EA for stroke. RCTs on EA for stroke were evaluated by using CONSORT guidelines and STRICTA guidelines. Microsoft Excel 2010 and the R software were used for descriptive statistics analyses. Seventy studies involving 5468 stroke patients were identified. The CONSORT scores ranged from 16.2 to 67.6% and STRICTA scores from 29.4 to 82.4%. The central items in CONSORT as eligibility criterion, sample size calculation, primary outcome, method of randomization sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation of randomization, description of blinding, and detailed statistical methods were reported in 100, 6, 68, 37, 14, 10, 16, and 97% of trials, respectively. The reporting of items in STRICTA as acupuncture rationale was 1a (91%), 1b (86%) and 1c 0%; needling details 2a (33%), 2b (97%), 2c (29%), 2d (64%), 2e (100%), 2f (55%) and 2 g (66%); treatment regimen 3a (69%) and 3b (100%); other components of treatment 4a (86%) and 4b (13%); practitioner background item 5 (16%); control intervention(s) 6a (93%) and 6b (10%). The quality of reporting of RCTs on EA for stroke was generally moderate. The reporting quality needs further improvement.