See the published version of this preprint at Chinese Medicine.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
Zhao-Xiang Bian
Hong Kong Baptist University School of Chinese Medicine
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6206-1958
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported.
Methods: Five Databases (including Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CNKI and VIP) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 16-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STRICTOM (STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics.
Results: A total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions.
Conclusion: The reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of “PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions” should be developed thus to improve their quality.
Keywords
Systematic review, Meta-analysis, Moxibustion, PRISMA statement, Reporting quality, Chinese Medicine
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Supplementaryinformation.docx
S1. Search strategy.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Chinese Medicine.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 19 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 17 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 16 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Sep, 2020
Version 1
Posted 30 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 04 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 01 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 19 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 12 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 28 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 28 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 26 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Clinical Pharmacology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Chinese Medicine.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Zhao-Xiang Bian
Hong Kong Baptist University School of Chinese Medicine
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6206-1958
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Chinese Medicine.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 19 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 17 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 16 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Sep, 2020
Version 1
Posted 30 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 04 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 01 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 19 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 12 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 28 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 28 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 26 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Clinical Pharmacology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Chinese Medicine.
Background: Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported.
Methods: Five Databases (including Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CNKI and VIP) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 16-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STRICTOM (STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics.
Results: A total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions.
Conclusion: The reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of “PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions” should be developed thus to improve their quality.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Supplementaryinformation.docx
S1. Search strategy.
Loading...