↓ Skip to main content

The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of electroacupuncture for stroke

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of electroacupuncture for stroke
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12906-016-1497-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing-jing Wei, Wen-ting Yang, Su-bing Yin, Chen Wang, Yan Wang, Guo-qing Zheng

Abstract

Electroacupuncture (EA), as an extension technique of acupuncture based on traditional acupuncture combined with modern electrotherapy, is commonly used for stroke in clinical treatment and researches. However, there is still a lack of enough evidence to recommend the routine use of EA for stroke. This study is aimed at evaluating the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on EA for stroke. RCTs on EA for stroke were evaluated by using CONSORT guidelines and STRICTA guidelines. Microsoft Excel 2010 and the R software were used for descriptive statistics analyses. Seventy studies involving 5468 stroke patients were identified. The CONSORT scores ranged from 16.2 to 67.6% and STRICTA scores from 29.4 to 82.4%. The central items in CONSORT as eligibility criterion, sample size calculation, primary outcome, method of randomization sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation of randomization, description of blinding, and detailed statistical methods were reported in 100, 6, 68, 37, 14, 10, 16, and 97% of trials, respectively. The reporting of items in STRICTA as acupuncture rationale was 1a (91%), 1b (86%) and 1c 0%; needling details 2a (33%), 2b (97%), 2c (29%), 2d (64%), 2e (100%), 2f (55%) and 2 g (66%); treatment regimen 3a (69%) and 3b (100%); other components of treatment 4a (86%) and 4b (13%); practitioner background item 5 (16%); control intervention(s) 6a (93%) and 6b (10%). The quality of reporting of RCTs on EA for stroke was generally moderate. The reporting quality needs further improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Other 5 13%
Student > Master 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Neuroscience 5 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Unknown 14 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,365,559
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,984
of 3,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#353,513
of 419,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#60
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.