Reporting randomized controlled trial quality and search date in systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Ref ID 749
First Author L.Puljak
Journal PAIN
Year Of Publishing 2017
Keywords Transparency
Complimentary & Alternative
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Problem(s) Search strategy not provided
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Number of systematic reviews included 1
Summary of Findings The letter highlights concerns over the conduct of one systematic review and meta-analysis of the persistence of the effects of acupuncture after a course of treatment in patients with chronic pain published in 2017. The author of the letter highlights that the systematic review reportedly only included high quality trials but the definitions of "high quality" were not clear from the published report. Additionally the search details including the dates of search were not provided to facilitate replication. The authors of the systematic review reply that it would have been duplicative to repeat these details as they had been published elsewhere.
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?