Risk of bias assessments and reporting quality of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials examining acupuncture for depression: An overview and meta‐epidemiology study

Ref ID	45
First Author	S. Luo
Journal	JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE‐BASED MEDICINE
Year Of Publishing	2020
URL	https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/jebm.12372?download=true
Keywords	• Risk of bias • Complimentary & Alternative
Problem(s)	• Flawed risk of bias undertaken • No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Number of systematic reviews included	39
Summary of Findings	Of the 39 included systematic reviews of acupuncture for depression, two (5%) did not perform a risk of bias assessment, 18.9% did not report the risk of bias assessment results, and 62.2% did not report the assessment results of each risk of bias item. Text descriptions and tables were commonly used in reporting forms. Only 32.4% of systematic reviews reported support for judgment. The reporting rate of risk of bias assessment results was low in all items (13.5%-35.1%).
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes