Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke. Methods Six databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMbase (1984 to December 2005), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1994 to December 2005), China Biomedicine Database disc (CBMdisc, 1980 to December 2005), VIP (a full text issues database of China, 1989 to December 2005) were searched systematically. Handsearch for further references was conducted. Language was limited to Chinese and English. We identified 74 RCTs that used acupuncture as an intervention and assessed the quality of these reports against the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).Results In regard to the items in the CONSORT statement, 54 (73%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Twenty-six (35%) mentioned the method of generating the random sequence, with 4 (5%) using a computer allocation. Only 6 (8%) RCTs had adequate allocation concealment, with 5 RCTs using sealed opaque envelopes and 1 RCT using centralized computer allocation. Only 8 (11%) RCTs used blinding, including 5 described as double-blind. Four (5%) RCTs reported the sample size calculation and 5 (7%) RCTs reported that an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. In regard to the items in STRICTA , only 4 (5%) RCTs reported the numbers of needles inserted. In 35 (47%) RCTs the needle type was reported, but only 26 (35%) mentioned the depths of insertion. Only 1 (1%) RCT mentioned the length of clinical experience and 6 (8%) RCTs reported the background of the acupuncture practitioners, but none stated the duration of their training.Conclusion The reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke was low. The CONSORT statement and STRICTA should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs of acupuncture.
Objective To assess whether the results of clinical trials on systematic reviews presented in different ways would influence postgraduates’ perception of risk and clinical decision after attending a research design course. Methods We distributed a questionnaire to all postgraduates who attended the final examination. The questionnaire presented the results of a systematic review. Data were presented in four different ways in the following order: as a relative risk reduction (RRR), as an absolute risk reduction (ARR), as the proportion of difference in event-free patients (EFP), and as the number of patients who needed to be treated to prevent one death (NNT). We asked all postgraduates to mark their decisions along a linear scale. Results We distributed and retrieved 342 questionnaires. Three were incomplete and excluded from our analyses. The results showed that the mean score and recommended level were significantly higher when data were expressed as NNT compared with RRR, ARR and EFP (Plt;0.01). There was no difference among RRR, ARR and EFP. However, 279 postgraduates’ score ranges were greater than 4 among the four different presentations. Conclusion The way of presenting data has significant influence on postgraduates’ perception of risk and their clinical decisions, even after a course teaching them about research design. Further improvements are needed for teachers on how to interprete different ways of presenting risk and their clinical importance.