Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 614850, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/614850
Review Article

Assessment of Registration Information on Methodological Design of Acupuncture RCTs: A Review of 453 Registration Records Retrieved from WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform

1Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Lanzhou University, Donggang West Road, Chengguan, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
2New Product Development of Chinese Medicine Engineering Lab, Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Dingxi East Road, Chengguan, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
3Xiaoman Middle School, Zhangye, Gansu 730000, China

Received 22 November 2013; Accepted 29 December 2013; Published 12 February 2014

Academic Editor: Byung-Cheul Shin

Copyright © 2014 Jing Gu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background. This review provides the first methodological information assessment of protocol of acupuncture RCTs registered in WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Methods. All records of acupuncture RCTs registered in the ICTRP have been collected. The methodological design assessment involved whether the randomization methods, allocation concealment, and blinding were adequate or not based on the information of registration records (protocols of acupuncture RCTs). Results. A total of 453 records, found in 11 registries, were examined. Methodological details were insufficient in registration records; there were 76.4%, 89.0%, and 21.4% records that did not provide information on randomization methods, allocation concealment, and blinding respectively. The proportions of adequate randomization methods, allocation concealment, and blinding were only 107 (23.6%), 48 (10.6%), and 210 (46.4%), respectively. The methodological design improved year by year, especially after 2007. Additionally, methodology of RCTs with ethics approval was clearly superior to those without ethics approval and different among registries. Conclusions. The overall methodological design based on registration records of acupuncture RCTs is not very well but improved year by year. The insufficient information on randomization methods, allocation concealment, and blinding maybe due to the relevant description is not taken seriously in acupuncture RCTs’ registration.