ADHERENCE TO STRICTA REPORTING GUIDELINES IN ACUPUNCTURE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS: A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT...
Author(s)
Chenwen Zhong, PhD1, Junjie Huang, PhD2, Martin Chi Sang Wong, MD3.
1JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, 2JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 3JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong.
1JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, 2JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 3JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong.
OBJECTIVES: High-quality reporting is essential for the interpretation and reproducibility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to comprehensively assess reporting quality in acupuncture RCTs using the revised STRICTA checklist and to identify factors associated with higher reporting quality.
METHODS: We evaluated a dataset of eligible acupuncture RCTs, with additional analyses restricted to two-arm trials to assess robustness. Reporting quality was assessed using the revised STRICTA checklist, comprising 17 items across six domains: acupuncture rationale, needling details, treatment regimen, co-interventions, practitioner background, and control or comparator interventions. Each item was scored as fully reported or not based on published reports. Domain-level and overall scores were calculated as the proportion of fully reported items (0%-100%). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with higher reporting quality.
RESULTS: A total of 885 RCTs were included. The mean overall STRICTA reporting score was 68.5%. Reporting quality was highest for treatment regimen (95.2%), acupuncture rationale (83.4%), and needling details (68.4%), but lower for control/comparator interventions (47.4%), co-interventions (39.6%), and practitioner background (38.2%). Six items were fully reported in over 80% of applicable trials, whereas three items—treatment setting (21.6%), control description (32.5%), and practitioner background (38.2%)—were poorly reported. Higher reporting quality was associated with English-language publication, reporting of funding support, adverse event reporting, electroacupuncture use, use of acupuncture-related controls, analyst blinding, and a greater number of authors. Findings were consistent in analyses restricted to two-arm trials. Domain- and item-level analyses showed similar overall patterns, with variability across domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting quality in acupuncture RCTs remains variable across domains, with notable deficiencies in control descriptions and practitioner-related information. Improvements require strengthening reporting standards and promoting methodological and reporting rigor, alongside clearer guidance to enhance completeness and transparency in trial reporting.
METHODS: We evaluated a dataset of eligible acupuncture RCTs, with additional analyses restricted to two-arm trials to assess robustness. Reporting quality was assessed using the revised STRICTA checklist, comprising 17 items across six domains: acupuncture rationale, needling details, treatment regimen, co-interventions, practitioner background, and control or comparator interventions. Each item was scored as fully reported or not based on published reports. Domain-level and overall scores were calculated as the proportion of fully reported items (0%-100%). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with higher reporting quality.
RESULTS: A total of 885 RCTs were included. The mean overall STRICTA reporting score was 68.5%. Reporting quality was highest for treatment regimen (95.2%), acupuncture rationale (83.4%), and needling details (68.4%), but lower for control/comparator interventions (47.4%), co-interventions (39.6%), and practitioner background (38.2%). Six items were fully reported in over 80% of applicable trials, whereas three items—treatment setting (21.6%), control description (32.5%), and practitioner background (38.2%)—were poorly reported. Higher reporting quality was associated with English-language publication, reporting of funding support, adverse event reporting, electroacupuncture use, use of acupuncture-related controls, analyst blinding, and a greater number of authors. Findings were consistent in analyses restricted to two-arm trials. Domain- and item-level analyses showed similar overall patterns, with variability across domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting quality in acupuncture RCTs remains variable across domains, with notable deficiencies in control descriptions and practitioner-related information. Improvements require strengthening reporting standards and promoting methodological and reporting rigor, alongside clearer guidance to enhance completeness and transparency in trial reporting.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-09, ISPOR Asia Pacific 2026, Bangkok, Thailand
Value in Health, Volume 55, Issue S1
Code
MSR8
Topic
Methodological & Statistical Research
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas