ArticlePloS one2020
Do acupuncture trials have lower risk of bias over the last five decades? A methodological study of 4 715 randomized controlled trials.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Trends and quality of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture conducted in Japan by decade from the 1960s to the 2010s: a systematic review.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Pooled it
- Risk of bias among Chinese-language randomized controlled trials on Chinese herbal medicine included in meta-analyses published in 2021-2022: A cross-sectional study.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessment of reporting quality in randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for labor pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the change of the risk of bias (RoB) of acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the past five decades.
methodsMultiple databases were searched. We included RCTs identified from systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture. General characteristics and RoB judgment for each domain were extracted. The proportions of RCTs at high and unclear RoB were calculated and the changes were examined by the Mann-Kendall test.
resultsWe included 368 SRs including 4 715 RCTs. The rates of RCTs at unclear RoB were the highest in allocation concealment (63%), and at the lowest in incomplete outcome data (35%); in the last five decades, statistically significant reductions were found for random sequence generation (P < 0.001) and selective reporting (P = 0.01), and increases for blinding of participants and personnel (P < 0.001), blinding of outcome assessment (P < 0.001) and incomplete outcome data (P = 0.04). For the proportions of RCTs at high RoB, blinding of participants and personnel (47%) and blinding of outcome assessment (35%) were the poorest domains; there were no significant differences in changes for all domains.
conclusionsAlthough improvements concerning unclear risk were observed for random sequence generation and selective reporting, major issues remain for allocation concealment and blinding. It is imperative to use valid randomization, specify how it is conducted, and try to test for selection bias and the success of masking by using the Berger Exner test.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.