Abstract ID: 2244

Primary Topic: Whole systems and acupuncture (including TCM and Ayurveda)
Secondary Topic: State of the science/evidence base for integrative modalities

Citation and relevant factors of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture published in English literature
Liqiong Wang, PHD; CHUNXIANG SU, PRO; Yu-tong Fei, MD, PhD; LIANHAN SHANG, MD; XUEHAN LIU, MD; NING LIANG, MD; JIANPING LIU, PRO, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, BEIJING, China

Late Breaker: No

Purpose

Increasing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been published internationally to assess the effect and safety of acupuncture. There is insufficient information about the citation of the published RCTs to reflect their uptaking. We aim to explore the citation of acupuncture RCTs published in English and relevant factors to promote their value.

Methods/Session Format

Acupuncture RCTs were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from their inception to December 2013. Included RCTs were grouped into high citation (cited ≥3 per year) or low citation (less than 3) from Web of Science. Logistic regression (backward: LR) were used to built final model to explore the related influencing factors based on 24 concomitant variables including country origin, journal impact factor (2013), ICD-10, risk of bias, positive results (positive on more than 50% primary outcome or conclusions based on Vickers’s judgments standard).

Results

823 acupuncture RCTs were identified (including 244 highly and 579 lowly cited trials of which 32 (5%) was not cited). The median of citation per year of 823 RCTs was 1.71 (IQR: 0.86-3.18; range: 0-27.20). Ten out of 24 variables were analyzed: diseases, center numbers was not associated with citation, but the country from the West (vs eastern OR:1.78), general and professional medical journals (vs complementary related journals OR: 2.11; 2.55), trials with multiple arms (vs two arms OR: 2.04), outcome specified (vs unspecified OR: 2.02), funding (vs no funding OR: 1.74), positive results (vs negative OR: 1.73) were independently associated with more citations, while no blinding of participants were less likely to be cited (vs blinding OR: 0.60).

Conclusions

Trials from the West, published in high impact journals, with funding and positive results were more likely to be cited, and participants unblinded were less likely cited. Future acupuncture trials might be taking care of participants blinding, specified outcomes to increase their use.