BACKGROUND: Quality acupuncture influences the outcomes of clinical research, and issues associated with effective administration of acupuncture in randomized controlled trials need to be addressed when appraising studies. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to achieve consensus on domains and items for inclusion in a rating scale to assess quality acupuncture administered in clinical research. STUDY DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: An active group of Australian acupuncture researchers initially identified a pool of items assessing quality. The Delphi consensus process was then used to select and reduce the number of items, and an additional expert panel of 42 researchers were invited to participate. Participants initially ranked items along a five-point scale for the first Delphi round, and indicated an agree or disagree response during the second round. For an item to be retained into the second round, an item had to attain greater than 80% agreement that the item described a dimension of quality acupuncture and related study design. RESULTS: Thirty-two (32) experts agreed to participate in the study. After two rounds of the Delphi process, consensus was reached on 14 domains and 26 items relating to quality acupuncture. Domains, items, and minimum standards related to study design; rationale of the intervention; criteria relating to needling stimulation either manual or electrostimulation; duration and frequency of treatment; and practitioner training. CONCLUSIONS: Items for inclusion in an instrument to assess quality acupuncture in clinical research were identified. Further development of the instrument including relative weighting of items and reliability testing is under way.
BACKGROUND: Quality acupuncture influences the outcomes of clinical research, and issues associated with effective administration of acupuncture in randomized controlled trials need to be addressed when appraising studies. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to achieve consensus on domains and items for inclusion in a rating scale to assess quality acupuncture administered in clinical research. STUDY DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: An active group of Australian acupuncture researchers initially identified a pool of items assessing quality. The Delphi consensus process was then used to select and reduce the number of items, and an additional expert panel of 42 researchers were invited to participate. Participants initially ranked items along a five-point scale for the first Delphi round, and indicated an agree or disagree response during the second round. For an item to be retained into the second round, an item had to attain greater than 80% agreement that the item described a dimension of quality acupuncture and related study design. RESULTS: Thirty-two (32) experts agreed to participate in the study. After two rounds of the Delphi process, consensus was reached on 14 domains and 26 items relating to quality acupuncture. Domains, items, and minimum standards related to study design; rationale of the intervention; criteria relating to needling stimulation either manual or electrostimulation; duration and frequency of treatment; and practitioner training. CONCLUSIONS: Items for inclusion in an instrument to assess quality acupuncture in clinical research were identified. Further development of the instrument including relative weighting of items and reliability testing is under way.
Authors: Isabelle Boutron; David Moher; Douglas G Altman; Kenneth F Schulz; Philippe Ravaud Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Eric Manheimer; Ke Cheng; Klaus Linde; Lixing Lao; Junghee Yoo; Susan Wieland; Daniëlle Awm van der Windt; Brian M Berman; Lex M Bouter Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2010-01-20
Authors: Adrian White; Mike Cummings; Panos Barlas; Francesco Cardini; Jacqueline Filshie; Nadine E Foster; Thomas Lundeberg; Elisabet Stener-Victorin; Claudia Witt Journal: Acupunct Med Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Klaus Linde; Gianni Allais; Benno Brinkhaus; Eric Manheimer; Andrew Vickers; Adrian R White Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-01-21
Authors: Hugh MacPherson; Douglas G Altman; Richard Hammerschlag; Youping Li; Taixiang Wu; Adrian White; David Moher Journal: Acupunct Med Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Michael de Manincor; Alan Bensoussan; Caroline Smith; Paul Fahey; Suzanne Bourchier Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Caroline A Smith; Christopher J Zaslawski; Suzanne Cochrane; Xiaoshu Zhu; Zhen Zheng; Bertrand Loyeung; Peter C Meier; Sean Walsh; Charlie Changli Xue; Anthony L Zhang; Paul P Fahey; Alan Bensoussan Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Yihong Liu; Brian H May; Anthony Lin Zhang; Xinfeng Guo; Chuanjian Lu; Charlie Changli Xue; Haibo Zhang Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2018-07-29 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Belinda J Anderson; Benjamin Kligler; Barry Taylor; Hillel W Cohen; Paul R Marantz Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 2.579