- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Search strategy not provided
- 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 |
| URL | https://journals.lww.com/pain/Citation/2017/12000/Reporting_randomized_controlled_trial_quality_and.25.aspx |
| Keywords |
Transparency Pain 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? |