The Quality of Methodological and Reporting in Network Meta-Analysis of Acupuncture and Moxibustion: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background. Acupuncture had long been a primary treatment in the healthcare system of China. In recent years, there were more and more network meta-analyses (NMAs) in the field of acupuncture and moxibustion, but the quality evaluation of NMAs was rare. Objectives. The goal of this study was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs and summarize the effects of different treatments of acupuncture and moxibustion. Methods. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), WanFang Database (WF), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched from inception to January 2020 without any language restriction. In addition, the unpublished studies and the references of initially included literature were also retrieved manually. We included all relevant NMAs treated with acupuncture and moxibustion; other therapies such as traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine may also be included, but at least three types fall under the category of acupuncture in each NMA. Outcome indicators were not limited. We selected AMSTAR2 and PRISMA-NMA to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of eligible studies, respectively. Results. In total, 29 NMAs were included finally, including 12 Chinese references and 17 English references. All eligible studies were published from May 2013 to August 2019. The number of interventions was between 4 and 22. The number of clinical trials included ranged from 10 to 121, with a total of 1098 clinical trials. The NMAs were involved in up to 23 diseases, knee osteoarthritis and primary dysmenorrhea covered with 3 NMAs separately, others focusing on chronic functional constipation, lumbar disc herniation, chronic fatigue syndrome, and the like. The Jadad scale and RoB scale were used as the bias risk assessment tools. Among them, 7 articles adopted the Jadad scale, 22 articles adopted the RoB scale (1 article adopted both the Jadad scale and RoB scale), and only 1 article did not mention the risk assessment tool. The AMSTAR2 methodological evaluation showed that the highest score was 13.5 points and the lowest was 4, with an average of 8.64 and a median of 9.5. According to the quality criteria, only one of them was in high quality, twenty-four were in medium quality, and four were in low quality. The PRISMA-NMA reporting quality evaluation showed that the highest score was 29 points and the lowest was 13.5, with an average of 23.62 and a median of 24.5; severe flaws also existed in some items, especially in "Structured summary," "Protocol and registration," "Search," "Data collection process," "Data items," "Additional analyses," "Risk of bias across studies," and "Results of additional analyses." Conclusion. The number of NMAs in the field of acupuncture and moxibustion was still in the initial stage. Overall, their methodology and reports were of moderate quality. However, severe flaws also existed in some items. Because the eligible NMAs were limited, the conclusion needed further research to confirm its authenticity and reliability.