| Ref ID | 834 |
| First Author | Y. Long |
| Journal | ACUPUNCTURE IN MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2021 |
| URL | https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0964528420946043?casa_token=fyJvHCu0d3gAAAAA:0S1xRsYNcIBZ2TucCI4lvP63gztf8LnLY_2N5UwpeeXs3Rh1Iuq3iUaJs-hNl3apIwU5OALn1_6n2A |
| Keywords |
• Risk of bias • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | China |
| Aim | To assess the use and reporting of risk of bias (RoB) tools in systematic reviews of acupuncture published in Medline, Embase, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang and VIP databases from inception to 24 November 2017. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture published up to November 2017, 7% did not report any results, and only 10% reported relatively complete and adequate risk of bias assessment. Cochrane systematic reviews reported more complete assessments than Chinese-language or non-Cochrane English-language systematic reviews. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 825 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 4274 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |