针刺治疗单纯性肥胖随机对照试验的中英文文献报告质量评价

目的：评价针刺治疗单纯性肥胖随机对照试验（RCT）的中英文文献报告质量。方法：检索国家知识基础设施数据库（CNKI）、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、中国学术期刊数据库（CSPD）、中文科技期刊数据库（CCD）、Web of Science、PubMed、Embase、CENTRAL中有关针刺治疗单纯性肥胖的RCT，检索时间2010年1月1日至2020年8月1日，用临床试验报告的统一标准（CONSORT）声明和针刺临床试验干预措施报告（STRICTA）标准中的条目进行文献报告质量评价，对中英文文献进行对比。结果：最终纳入中文文献26篇，英文文献8篇。中、英文文献CONSORT条目报告率分别是33.89％和49.66％。中、英文文献STRICTA条目报告百分比分别是56.11％和66.18％。结论：针刺治疗单纯性肥胖的RCT报告质量较低，且中英文报告质量水平在各方面有不同程度差异。今后研究者需要进一步学习CONSORT声明和STRICTA标准，并提高临床试验设计水平，加强RCT的报告质量。

Quality Evaluation of Chinese and English Literature Report on Acupuncture Treatment for Simple Obesity

To evaluate the quality of Chinese and English literature reports on the randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of acupuncture treatment for simple obesity.Methods:The RCTs of acupuncture for the treatment of simple obesity were retrieved from the databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),China Biology Medicine disc(CBMdisc),China Science Periodical Database(CSPD),Chinese Citation Database(CCD),PubMed,Embase,and CENTRAL from January 1,2010 to August 1,2020.TThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials(CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture(STRICTA) were used to evaluate the quality of literature reports,and the Chinese reports were compared with the English reports.Results:Finally,26 Chinese literature reports and 8 English literature reports were included.The CONSORT item reporting rates for Chinese and English literature reports were 33.89% and 49.66%,respectively.The STRICTA item reporting rates for Chinese and English literature reports were 56.11% and 66.18%,respectively.Conclusion:The RCTs of acupuncture treatment for simple obesity have low quality.There are differences in various aspects between Chinese and English reports.In the future,researchers need to further study the CONSORT statement and STRICTA standard to improve the level of clinical trial design and strengthen the quality of RCTs.