Core outcomes were rarely reported overall in systematic reviews on acupuncture for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify a comprehensive list of outcomes and explore the reporting rate of core outcome sets (COS) and related factors in systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture for osteoarthritis (OA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Databases were searched for the relative SRs. Descriptive statistics were calculated as frequencies and percentages. Binary logistic regression was used to explore the factors affecting the reporting rate of COS. RESULTS: We included 59 SRs. Outcome measures reported in the SRs were classified into 11 domains and 67 unique outcomes. No SR completely reported COS. In COS released in 2016, 75% of outcomes (6/8) were only reported by ⩽5% SRs. In COS released in 2019, the reporting rate was very low (from 0% to 17%) for 73.3% of outcomes (11/15). SRs published in the most recent 5 years had a significantly greater possibility of reporting COS (odds ratio (OR) = 4.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.33 to 16.88, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Core outcomes were rarely reported in systematic reviews of acupuncture for OA, with considerable heterogeneity in the use of outcomes. The publication of COS in the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) database may help promote the reporting of COS. We encourage systematic reviewers to use relevant COS.

Agreement of Risk-of -Bias varied in systematic reviews on acupuncture and was associated with methodological quality.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to evaluate the consistency of risk of bias assessments for overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Databases were searched for acupuncture SRs. A weighted kappa (κ) statistic was calculated, and logistic regression was used to explore the factors of disagreements. RESULTS: We included 241 RCTs from 109 SRs on acupuncture. The percentage disagreements ranged from 25% to 44%, with moderate agreement for random sequence generation (κ = 0.57), allocation concealment (κ = 0.50), and incomplete outcome data (κ = 0.50), besides fair agreement for blinding of participants and personnel (κ = 0.44), blinding of outcome assessment (κ = 0.31), and selective reporting (κ = 0.39). Only 19% RCTs were evaluated completely consistent. Methodological quality (random sequence generation, odds ratio (OR) = 3.46), international cooperation (allocation concealment, OR = 0.14; incomplete outcome data, OR = 0.14; selective reporting, OR = 0.05), and risk of bias reporting completeness score (selective reporting, OR = 0.53) significantly affected the relative odds of disagreements. CONCLUSION: The level of agreement varied from fair to moderate agreement depending on the risk of bias domain. Methodological quality appears to be an overarching factor to account for disagreements.