Ping Shuai1, Xiao-Hua Zhou, Lixing Lao, Xiaosong Li. 1. Department of Health Statistics, West China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate major methods of design and statistical analysis in controlled clinical acupuncture trials published in the West during the past six years (2003-2009) and, based on this analysis, to provide recommendations that address methodological issues and challenges in clinical acupuncture research. METHOD: PubMed was searched for acupuncture RCTs published in Western journals in English between 2003 and 2009. The keyword used was acupuncture. RESULTS: One hundred and eight qualified reports of acupuncture trials that included more than 30 symptoms/conditions were identified, analyzed, and grouped into efficacy (explanatory), effectiveness (pragmatically beneficial), and other (unspecified) studies. All were randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). In spite of significant improvement in the quality of acupuncture RCTs in the last 30 years, these reports show that some methodological issues and shortcomings in design and analysis remain. Moreover, the quality of the efficacy studies was not superior to that of the other types of studies. Research design and reporting problems include unclear patient criteria and inadequate practitioner eligibility, inadequate randomization, and blinding, deficiencies in the selection of controls, and improper outcome measurements. The problems in statistical analysis included insufficient sample sizes and power calculations, inadequate handling of missing data and multiple comparisons, and inefficient methods for dealing with repeated measure and cluster data, baseline value adjustment, and confounding issues. CONCLUSION: Despite recent advancements in acupuncture research, acupuncture RCTs can be improved, and more rigorous research methods should be carefully considered.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate major methods of design and statistical analysis in controlled clinical acupuncture trials published in the West during the past six years (2003-2009) and, based on this analysis, to provide recommendations that address methodological issues and challenges in clinical acupuncture research. METHOD: PubMed was searched for acupuncture RCTs published in Western journals in English between 2003 and 2009. The keyword used was acupuncture. RESULTS: One hundred and eight qualified reports of acupuncture trials that included more than 30 symptoms/conditions were identified, analyzed, and grouped into efficacy (explanatory), effectiveness (pragmatically beneficial), and other (unspecified) studies. All were randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). In spite of significant improvement in the quality of acupuncture RCTs in the last 30 years, these reports show that some methodological issues and shortcomings in design and analysis remain. Moreover, the quality of the efficacy studies was not superior to that of the other types of studies. Research design and reporting problems include unclear patient criteria and inadequate practitioner eligibility, inadequate randomization, and blinding, deficiencies in the selection of controls, and improper outcome measurements. The problems in statistical analysis included insufficient sample sizes and power calculations, inadequate handling of missing data and multiple comparisons, and inefficient methods for dealing with repeated measure and cluster data, baseline value adjustment, and confounding issues. CONCLUSION: Despite recent advancements in acupuncture research, acupuncture RCTs can be improved, and more rigorous research methods should be carefully considered.
Authors: C Witt; B Brinkhaus; S Jena; K Linde; A Streng; S Wagenpfeil; J Hummelsberger; H U Walther; D Melchart; S N Willich Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jul 9-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: João Bosco Guerreiro da Silva; Mary Uchiyama Nakamura; José Antonio Cordeiro; Luiz Júnior Kulay Journal: Acupunct Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Gary Deng; Andrew Vickers; Simon Yeung; Gabriella M D'Andrea; Han Xiao; Alexandra S Heerdt; Steven Sugarman; Tiffany Troso-Sandoval; Andrew D Seidman; Clifford A Hudis; Barrie Cassileth Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Weidong Lu; Peter M Wayne; Roger B Davis; Julie E Buring; Hailun Li; Laura A Goguen; David S Rosenthal; Roy B Tishler; Marshall R Posner; Robert I Haddad Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Michelle Cristina Ichida; Mariana Zemuner; Jorge Hosomi; Hong Jin Pai; Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira; José Tadeu Tesseroli de Siqueira; Silvia R D T de Siqueira Journal: Chin J Integr Med Date: 2017-10-28 Impact factor: 1.978
Authors: Yu-Qing Zhang; Rui-Min Jiao; Claudia M Witt; Lixing Lao; Jian-Ping Liu; Lehana Thabane; Karen J Sherman; Mike Cummings; Dawn P Richards; Eun-Kyung Anna Kim; Tae-Hun Kim; Myeong Soo Lee; Michael E Wechsler; Benno Brinkhaus; Jun J Mao; Caroline A Smith; Wei-Juan Gang; Bao-Yan Liu; Zhi-Shun Liu; Yan Liu; Hui Zheng; Jia-Ni Wu; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Mohit Bhandari; Philip J Devereaux; Xiang-Hong Jing; Gordon Guyatt Journal: BMJ Date: 2022-03-30
Authors: Robert Hodgson; Richard Allen; Ellen Broderick; J Martin Bland; Jo C Dumville; Rebecca Ashby; Sally Bell-Syer; Ruth Foxlee; Jill Hall; Karen Lamb; Mary Madden; Susan O'Meara; Nikki Stubbs; Nicky Cullum Journal: Trials Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 2.279