The reporting quality and risk of bias of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for migraine: Methodological study based on STRICTA and RoB 2.0. (August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lu, Tingting; Lu, Cuncun; Li, Huijuan; Xing, Xin; Deng, Xiuxiu; Li, Xiuxia; Wang, Yongfeng; Niu, Junqiang; Liu, Yali; Yang, Kehu
• Is Part Of: Complementary therapies in medicine. Volume 52(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-08
• Subjects: Acupuncture -- Migraine -- Reporting quality -- Risk of bias -- STRICTA -- RoB 2.0; Alternative medicine -- Periodicals; Complementary Therapies -- Periodicals; Médecines parallèles -- Périodiques; Thérapeutique -- Périodiques; Alternative medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102433
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0965-2299

Abstract

Highlights: The reporting quality and risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for migraine were assessed using STRICTA and RoB 2.0, respectively. We found that seven sub-items had high reporting rate, and the following four sub-items ("details of other interventions", "setting and context of treatment", "the extent to which treatment was varied", and "number of needle insertions per subject per session") had a low reporting rate. A total of 127 outcomes of 32 different outcomes were reported in 28 RCTs. nine RCTs (32%) were at high RoB, 11 (39%) showed some concerns, and eight (29%) were at low RoB for their outcomes. The reporting quality and RoB of RCTs on acupuncture for migraine remain suboptimal, including low reporting quality and high RoB. Abstract: Objectives: To investigate the reporting quality and risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for migraine, to facilitate and improve the quality of RCTs of acupuncture for migraine. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to June 11, 2019 using a comprehensive search strategy. The reporting quality and risk of bias of included RCTs were independently evaluated by two investigators using STRICTA and RoB 2.0. Any disagreement was resolved by a third investigator. Results: A total of 28 eligible RCTs were published in 24 academic journals from 1994 to 2018. Based on STRICTA, four sub-items including "details of other interventions'' (1/28, 4 %), "setting and context of treatment" (9/28, 32 %), "the extent to which treatment was varied" (11/28, 39 %), and "number of needle insertions per subject per session" (13/28, 46 %), showed low reporting quality. A total of 32 different outcomes were reported in 28 RCTs, and based on RoB 2.0, nine (9/28, 32 %) RCTs were judged to be high RoB, three of which were owing to deviations from intended interventions; 11(11/28, 39 %) RCTs elicited some concerns; and eight (8/28, 29 %) RCTs were low RoB for their outcomes. Conclusions: The reporting quality and risk of bias of RCTs of acupuncture for migraine remain suboptimal. Therefore, all stakeholders should make a contribution to improve the quality of RCTs of acupuncture for migraine using STRICTA and RoB 2.0, while not limiting this approach solely to studies on migraine, using STRICTA and RoB 2.0 tools.