The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of electroacupuncture for stroke

Table 4 Comparison of reporting quality between Chinese and English studies (CONSORT)

CONSORT item	Chinese N = 54			English N = 16			Chinese vs. English (P-value for difference)
CONSORT item	n	%(n/54)	95%CI	n	%(n/16)	95%CI	Chinese vs. English (P-value for difference)
Title	3	6c	[1 to 15]	9	56	[30 to 80]	0.01
Methods
Trail design	48	89	[77 to 96]	10	63	[35 to 85]	0.061
Eligibility criteria	54	100	[93 to 100]	16	100	[79 to 100]	_
Interventions	54	100	[93 to 100]	16	100	[79 to 100]	_
Primary and secondary outcome	52	96	[87 to 100]	16	100	[79 to 100]	0.442
Sample size	3	6	[1 to 15]	1	6	[0 to 30]	0.918
Generation of random sequence	22	41	[28 to 55]	4	25	[7 to 52]	0.239
Allocation concealment	6	11	[4 to 23]	4	25	[7 to 52]	0.26
Blinding	4	7	[2 to 18]	7	44	[20 to 70]	0.014
Statistical methods	53	98	[90 to 100]	15	94	[70 to 100]	0.361
Results
Losses and exclusions	6	11	[4 to 23]	9	56	[30 to 80]	0.004
Recruitment	38	70	[56 to 82]	6	38	[15 to 65]	0.017
Numbers analysed	47	87	[75 to 95]	10	63	[35 to 85]	0.081
Harms	14	26	[15 to 40]	7	44	[20 to 70]	0.177
Limitations	4	7	[2 to 18]	6	38	[15 to 65]	0.33
Total mean score^a	15.2 ± 4.3			12.3 ± 3.6			0.05

ISSN: 2662-7671