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 Complimentary & Alternative
Risk of bias
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes