Acupuncture is widely used worldwide, and systematic reviews on acupuncture are increasingly being published. Although acupuncture systematic reviews share several essential elements with other systematic reviews, some essential information for the application of acupuncture is not covered by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Considering this, we aimed to develop an extension of the PRISMA statement for acupuncture systematic reviews. We used the PRISMA statement as a starting point, and conducted this study referring to the development strategy recommended by the EQUATOR network. The initial items were collected through a wide survey among evidence users and a review of relevant studies. We conducted a three-round Delphi survey and one-day face-to-face meeting to select items and formulate the checklist. After the consensus meeting, we drafted the manuscript (including the checklist) and sent it to our advisory experts for comments, following which the checklist was refined and circulated to a group of acupuncture systematic review authors for pilot test. We also selected a sample of acupuncture systematic reviews published in 2017 to test the checklist. A checklist of five new sub-items (including sub items) and six modified items was formulated, involving content related to title, rationale, eligibility criteria, literature search, data extraction, and study characteristics. We clarified the rationales of the items and provided examples for each item for additional guidance. The PRISMA for Acupuncture checklist is developed for improving the reporting of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions. We have registered the study on the EQUATOR network ( http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#91 ).

Although a high incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is observed among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients in developed countries, limited information is available about CVD prevalence and risk factors in the Chinese CKD population. The Chinese Cohort of Chronic Kidney Disease (C-STRIDE) was established to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of CVD among Chinese CKD patients. Participants with stage 1–4 CKD (18–74 years of age) were recruited at 39 clinical centers located in 28 cities from 22 provinces of China. At entry, the socio-demographic status, medical history, anthropometric measurements and lifestyle behaviors were documented, and blood and urine samples were collected. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated by the CKD-EPI creatinine equation. CVD diagnosis was based on patient self-report and review of medical records by trained staff. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate the association between risk factors and CVD. Three thousand four hundred fifty-nine Chinese patients with pre-stage 5 CKD were enrolled, and 3168 finished all required examinations and were included in the study. In total, 40.8% of the cohort was female, with a mean age of 48.21 ± 13.70 years. The prevalence of CVD was 9.8%, and in 69.1% of the CVD cases cerebrovascular disease was observed. Multivariable analysis showed that increasing age, lower eGFR, presence of hypertension, abdominal aorta calcification and diabetes were associated with comorbid CVD among CKD patients. The odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for these risk factors were 3.78 (2.55–5.59) for age 45–64 years and 6.07 (3.89–9.47) for age ≥65 years compared with age <45 years; 2.07 (1.28–3.34) for CKD stage 3a, 1.66 (1.00–2.62) for stage 3b, and 2.74 (1.72–4.36) for stage 4 compared with stages 1 and 2; 2.57 (1.50–4.41) for hypertension, 1.82 (1.23–2.70) for abdominal aorta calcification, and 1.70 (1.30–2.23) for diabetes, respectively. We reported the CVD prevalence among a CKD patient cohort and found age, hypertension, diabetes, abdominal aorta calcification and lower eGFR were independently associated with higher CVD prevalence. Prospective follow-up and longitudinal evaluations of CVD risk among CKD patients are warranted.

Objective To address the comparative effectiveness of common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer (axial or radicular) spine pain. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to 24 January 2023. Study selection RCTs that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer spine pain, randomised to receive a commonly used interventional procedure versus sham procedure, usual care, or another interventional procedure. Data extraction and synthesis Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Results Of 132 eligible studies, 81 trials with 7977 patients that explored 13 interventional procedures or combinations of procedures were included in meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with sham procedures. For chronic axial spine pain, the following probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence): epidural injection of local anaesthetic (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI −1.18 to 1.75)), epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD 0.20 (−1.11 to 1.51)), and joint-targeted steroid injection (WMD 0.83 (−0.26 to 1.93)). Intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic (WMD −0.53 (−1.97 to 0.92)), epidural steroid injection (WMD 0.39 (−0.94 to 1.71)), joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic (WMD 0.63 (−0.57 to 1.83)), and joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic with steroids (WMD 0.22 (−0.42 to 0.87)) may provide little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence); intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic with steroids may increase pain (WMD 1.82 (−0.29 to 3.93)) (low certainty evidence). Evidence for joint radiofrequency ablation proved of very low certainty. For chronic radicular spine pain, epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD −0.49 (−1.54 to 0.55)) and radiofrequency of dorsal root ganglion (WMD 0.15 (−0.98 to 1.28)) probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence). Epidural injection of local anaesthetic (WMD −0.26 (−1.37 to 0.84)) and epidural injection of steroids (WMD −0.56 (−1.30 to 0.17)) may result in little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence). Conclusion Our NMA of randomised trials provides low to moderate certainty evidence that, compared with sham procedures, commonly performed interventional procedures for axial or radicular chronic non-cancer spine pain may provide little to no pain relief. Registration PROSPERO (CRD42020170667)

With increasing attention put on the methodology of reporting guidelines, Moher et al. conducted a review of reporting guidelines up to December 2009. Information gaps appeared on many aspects. Therefore, in 2010, the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines was developed. With more than four years passed and a considerable investment was put into reporting guideline development, a large number of new, updated, and expanded reporting guidelines have become available since January 2010. We aimed to systematically review the reporting guidelines published since January 2010, and investigate the application of the Guidance. We systematically searched databases including the Cochrane Methodology Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, and retrieved EQUATOR and the website (if available) to find reporting guidelines as well as their accompanying documents. We screened the titles and abstracts resulting from searches and extracted data. We focused on the methodology and reporting of the included guidelines, and described information with a series of tables and narrative summaries. Data were summarized descriptively using frequencies, proportions, and medians as appropriate. Twenty-eight and 32 reporting guidelines were retrieved from databases and EQUATOR network, respectively. Reporting guidelines were designed for a broad spectrum of types of research. A considerable number of reporting guidelines were published and updated in recent years. Methods of initial items were given in 45 (75 %) guidelines. Thirty-eight (63 %) guidelines reported they have reached consensus, and 35 (58 %) described their consensus methods. Only 9 (15 %) guidelines followed the Guidance. Only few guidelines were developed complying with the Guidance. More attention should be paid to the quality of reporting guidelines.

Background: Public or patient versions of guidelines (PVGs) are derivative documents that “translate” recommendations and their rationale from clinical guidelines for health professionals into a more easily understandable and usable format for patients and the public. PVGs from different groups and organizations vary considerably in terms of quality of their reporting. In order to address this issue, we aimed to develop a reporting checklist for developers of PVGs and other potential users. Methods: First, we collected a list of potential items through reviewing a sample of PVGs, existing guidance for developing and reporting PVGs or other similar evidence-based patient tools, as well as qualitative studies on original studies of patients’ needs about the content and/or reporting of information in PVGs or similar evidence-based patient tools. Second, we conducted a two-round Delphi consultation to determine the level of consensus on the items to be included in the final reporting checklist. Third, we invited two external reviewers to provide comments on the checklist. Results: We generated the initial list of 45 reporting items based on a review of a sample of 30 PVGs, four PVG guidance documents, and 46 relevant studies. After the two-round Delphi consultation, we formed a checklist of 17 items grouped under 12 topics for reporting PVGs. Conclusion: The RIGHT-PVG reporting checklist provides an international consensus on the important criteria for reporting PVGs.