Incomplete reporting and spin in acupuncture trials

Specifically, the researchers assessed:

• (1) the reporting of acupuncture RCTs by the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement and STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) checklist;
• (2) the data sharing level by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data sharing statement;
• (3) spin frequency and level by the prespecified spin strategies.

This study evaluated 476 eligible studies, of which 166 (34.9%) explored the specific efficacy or safety of acupuncture in the nervous system, 68 (14.3%), in the motor system and 61 (12.8%) in the digestive system. The findings show:

• 244 (57.7%) studies tested conventional acupuncture, 296 (62.2%) used multicentre study design, and 369 (77.5%) were supported by institutional funding.
• 312 (65.5%) eligible studies were poorly reported. The sufficiently reporting scores of the CONSORT 2010 statement and the STRICTA checklist differed from 0.63% to 97.5%, and 32 (59.3%) items were less than 50%.
• For the data sharing level of acupuncture RCTs, only 66 (17.2%) studies followed the ICMJE data sharing statement, but 49 (14.5%) need to require authors to obtain data, and only 5 (1.5%) provided data by open access.
• Spins were identified in 408 (85.7%) studies (average spin frequencies: 2.94). 59 (37.2%) studies with non-significant primary outcomes had spin levels.

The authors concluded that the reporting of acupuncture RCTs was low compliance with the CONSORT 2010 statement, the STRICTA checklist and the ICMJE data sharing statement, and spin appeared frequently. Journal policies on using reporting guidelines, data sharing and equitable consideration of non-significant results might enhance the reporting of acupuncture RCTs.

This cannot surprise anyone who has followed my blog where we have repeatedly discussed the lamentable quality of acupuncture trials, e.g.:

• Insufficient reporting of adverse effects in acupuncture trials
• Acupuncture research at its worst
• A new trial concludes that “acupuncture can be used as an optional preventive therapy for chronic migraine” – but I beg to differ.
• Acupuncture for smoking cessation? I don’t think so!
• If you design a clinical trial badly, you might get an invalid result: Laser- vs electro-acupuncture
• Beware of Chinese acupuncture trials!
• Possibly the worst acupuncture study of the year so far
• Acupuncture reduces the risk of dementia – oh, really?
• Acupuncture for pain: plenty of useless papers and very little reliable evidence
• More acupuncture promotion (sponsored by a top journal) masquerading as research
• JAMA just published another truly awful acupuncture study
• Acupuncture improves the cognitive performance of college students … Oh, really?
• Acupuncture for the prevention of headache? How to fool (almost) everyone with an RCT
• The ‘WORST PAPER OF 2022 COMPETITION’ entry No 8: Acupuncture for the Treatment of Female Sexual Dysfunction
• Poor research endangers public health! Yet another example from the realm of acupuncture
• Acupuncture for male infertility (MI): a story of sloppy research endangering public health
• Acupuncture against obesity? No, I don’t think so!
• Efficacy of Acupuncture for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome? Another dubious study in a top journal

As I have pointed out ad nauseam, the problem stems from acupuncture enthusiasts abusing science not for testing acupuncture but for confirming their quai-religious belief that acupuncture is effective. This could be amusing to watch, but it has one important drawback: it misleads consumers and often endangers their health.

The question is: WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?

I think consumers, decision makers, physicians, editors, etc. should become much more critical about the utter nonsense that is being published in this area. I know this is not a practical recommendation, but unfortunately I do not have a better one.