针刺临床研究中模拟针刺对照报告相关指南比较分析

The standardized reports of simulated acupuncture control are conductive to understanding and replicating the control method for researchers and readers. At present, the reporting quality of the simulated control in the clinical research of acupuncture is low and there is not a guideline, specification or standard specifically for the report of simulated acupuncture control. In this article, we compared in-depth the checklists between STRICTA (standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of acupuncture) and TIDieR-Placebo (a guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls), and assessed their applicability in acupuncture clinical research. The checklist of STRICTA is a particular standard for reporting acupuncture intervention measures, including the items of acupuncture control, especially the reporting of the details in acupuncture control; while, the checklist of TIDieR-Placebo is for the comprehensive reporting of placebo or sham control, covering a wider range of content. It specifies the overall reporting of the placebo control setting, intervention delivery and blindness assessment. Although both of the checklists provide a certain reference for reporting simulated acupuncture, they are not applicable for adequately reporting the simulated acupuncture control. Therefore, it is urgent to develop a specific guideline for reporting simulated acupuncture control so as to improve the reporting quality.规范的模拟针刺对照报告有助于研究者、读者对该对照方式的理解与重复。目前部分针刺临床研究中模拟针刺对照报告质量较差，且尚无专门针对模拟针刺对照报告的指南、规范或标准。本文对模拟针刺对照相关报告规范——针刺临床试验干预措施报告标准(STRICTA)及安慰剂和假对照报告指南与清单(TIDieR-Placebo)进行深入地比较分析，并评价其在针刺临床研究中的适用性。STRICTA清单是专门针对针刺干预措施报告的规范，同时也包括对针刺对照内容的规范，侧重于针刺细节的报告；TIDieR-Placebo清单则是针对安慰剂对照或假干预普适性的报告标准，涵盖内容更广，从安慰对照设置、实施与盲法评价方面进行整体报告内容的规定。两者均对模拟针刺对照报告有一定的借鉴意义，但又不完全适用。故亟需制订专门针对模拟针刺对照报告的指南、标准或规范，以提高其报告质量。.