Skip to main content

Table 5 Reporting quality of 14 items of Moxibustion-related information (n = 97)

From: Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion

Category Item Description Yes, n (%)
Title Title 1. Reported the specific name of studied moxibustion 25 (25.8)
2. CM syndrome(s) was included 0 (0)
Introduction Rationale 3. CM-related theory 25 (25.8)
Methods Eligibility criteria for participants 4. Included CM syndrome diagnosis criteria 6 (6.2)
Eligibility criteria for outcomes 5. Included CM-related outcome(s) 3 (3.1)
Results Study characteristics 6. Reported treatment environment 5 (5.2)
7. Reported the materials and techniques used for moxibustion 59 (60.8)
8. Reported the types of moxibustion 30 (30.9)
9. Reported the selection of acupoints and meridians 32 (33.0)
10. Reported the number and frequency of the moxibustion 27 (27.8)
11. Reported the duration of the moxibustion 42 (43.3)
12. Reported the safety assessment or adverse effects (if exist) of the moxibustion 30 (30.9)
Synthesis of results 13. Considered moxibustion-specific characteristics in the subgroup analysis 27 (27.8)
14. Meta-analyses were properly conducteda 41 (44.6)
  1. aThe criteria of “properly conducted” was according to the homogeneity of the PICO information, especially the reporting quality of the details of moxibustion interventions and additional analyses provided as above. For example, if some of the moxibustion details were not reported, it is impossible to assess whether the meta-analyses in the SRs were properly conducted or not. In addition, of 97 included SRs, 92 had meta-analysis (as presented in Table 2). Thus, to calculate the proportion of this item, the percentage of records was based on the total number of 92. For example, 44.6% = 41/92