Table 4 Reporting quality of 26 trials according to STRICTA*
Intervention | Description of item | No. trials eligible to the principle | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
1 Acupuncture rationale | Â | Â | Â |
| Â | 1) Style of acupuncture | 25 | 96.15% |
| Â | 2) Rationale for treatment (e.g. syndrome patterns, segmental levels, trigger points) and individualization if used | 26 | 92.86% |
| Â | 3) Literature sources to justify rationale | 15 | 53.57% |
2 Needling details | Â | 0 | Â |
| Â | 1) Point used (uni/bilateral) | 26 | 92.86% |
| Â | 2) Numbers of needles inserted | 23 | 82.14% |
| Â | 3) Depths of insertion (e.g. cun or tissue level) | 16 | 57.14% |
| Â | 4) Responses elicited (e.g.de qi or twitch response) | 21 | 75.00% |
| Â | 5) Needle retention time | 20 | 71.43% |
| Â | 6) Needle type (gauge, length, and manufacturer or material) | 17 | 60.71% |
3 Treatment regimen | Â | 0 | Â |
| Â | 1) Number of treatment sessions | 26 | 92.86% |
| Â | 2) Frequency of treatment | 25 | 89.29% |
4 Co-interventions | Â | 0 | Â |
| Â | 1) Other interventions (e.g. moxibustion, cupping, herbs, exercises, lifestyle advice) | 21 | 75.00% |
5 Practitioner background | Â | 0 | Â |
| Â | 1) Duration of relevant training | 0 | 0.00% |
| Â | 2) Length of clinical experience | 18 | 64.29% |
| Â | 3) Expertise in specific condition | 18 | 64.29% |
6 Control interventions | Â | 0 | Â |
| Â | 1) Intended effect of control intervention and its appropriateness to research question and if appropriate, blinding of participants (e.g. active comparison, minimally active penetrating or nonpenetrating sham, inert) | 26 | 92.86% |
| Â | 2) Explanations given to patients of treatment and control interventions | 2 | 7.14% |
| Â | 3) Details of control intervention (precise description, as for item 2 above, and other items if different) | 25 | 89.29% |
| Â | 4) Sources that justify choice of control | 0 | 0.00% |