Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Analysis of the current state of acupuncture clinical trial registration and reporting: for the past 9 years

Background An increasing number of acupuncture clinical trials are registered, but the reports of results and data transparency are unclear. We aim to analyze and evaluate the current state of registration and reports of acupuncture clinical trials. Methods This paper focused on the acupuncture clinical trials that met the criteria in relevant studies registered and published during the period between 1 Jan 2013 to 31 Dec 2021. We traced by email to leaders that the report could not be searched. Besides, questionnaire investigation was chosen to acupuncture clinicians around by WeChat. Results The overall reporting rate of acupuncture clinical trial results from the two registration centers was 25%. Clinicaltrials.gov reporting rate was 12% and that from ChiCTR was 41%. Only a small proportion of trials were available on the registry website. Only the NIH clinical registry platform has records on the status of studies. We only received 3 replies that indicated the project was due to be ended but not completed. According to questionnaire, 157 clinicians have led clinical projects in Acupuncture. It shows that 84% projects were ended but not completed or not completed by the due date. About the reasons that caused the failure to find articles after the end of the project, 85% participants thought projects were ended but not completed or not completed by the due date. 15% participants thought projects were manuscript rejected, manuscript accepted but not in print, results protected, registration number unmarked, project delayed or negative results not submitted. Conclusion The number of acupuncture clinical trial registrations is steadily increasing, but the reporting rate of trial results is relatively low and the transparency of data is not ideal. Therefore, first of all, researchers should put more attention on trials designed, trial reported and respect to science. Secondly, set up a research progress tracker on registration platforms accessible to the public users. At the same time, the journal is suggested that adjust the evaluation criteria for reporting the negative results. Researchers with negative results are encouraged to show. Most importantly, the funders are recommended to optimize the ended review.