Overall reporting quality of randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for low back pain reported after 2020: a systematic review.

Researchers reviewed 57 recent studies on acupuncture for low back pain to see how well these studies were reported in medical journals. They found that while the quality of reporting varied widely, many studies left out important information that doctors and patients need to make informed decisions. The review used three different reporting checklists to evaluate the studies, looking at things like how the research was conducted, details about the acupuncture treatments, and how results were measured. The good news is that most studies did a satisfactory job describing the acupuncture treatments themselves—including where needles were placed, how long they were left in, and how many sessions patients received. However, many studies failed to report crucial details about their research methods, such as how they handled missing data or whether their results could be trusted. Studies published in English and those that received funding tended to have better reporting quality than others, particularly those from China. For patients considering acupuncture for low back pain, this review highlights an important limitation: even when acupuncture studies are published, they may not contain all the information needed to fully understand whether the treatment will work for you. This underscores the importance of discussing acupuncture treatment with qualified healthcare providers who can help interpret the available evidence. When seeking acupuncture care, always choose a licensed acupuncturist who can discuss both the potential benefits and limitations based on current research.

This systematic review evaluated reporting quality in 57 RCTs of acupuncture for low back pain published between January 2021 and January 2025. Studies were assessed using CONSORT, STRICTA, and CONSORT-Outcomes checklists. The median overall quality score was 32 (range 17-54). CONSORT-based reporting was poor (median QS=14, range 7-31), with 19 of 37 items inadequately reported (<30%), particularly regarding open science practices and key methodological domains. STRICTA reporting was satisfactory (median QS=9, range 4-13), though treatment setting and context were under-reported (3.5%). CONSORT-Outcomes reporting was suboptimal (median QS=8, range 5-16), with 10 of 17 items poorly reported. Regression analysis revealed English-language publications and funded studies had significantly higher reporting quality. Clinical takeaway: Practitioners should critically appraise acupuncture RCTs for methodological transparency, particularly those from Chinese journals, and advocate for improved adherence to reporting standards when publishing their own research.