The Quality of Methodological and Reporting in Network Meta-Analysis of Acupuncture and Moxibustion: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Table 4

Summary of methodological quality assessment.

Number	Item	Completely reported		Partially reported		Not reported
		Frequency (%)	95% CI	Frequency (%)	95% CI	Frequency (%)	95% CI
1	Components of PICO question?	22 (75.86%)	(0.58, 0.94)	6 (20.69%)	(−0.12, 0.53)	1 (3.45%)	(−0.32, 0.39)
2	Review protocol?	5 (17.24%)	(−0.16, 0.50)	0		24 (82.75%)	(0.68, 0.98)
3	Explanation of study design?	2 (6.90%)	(−0.28, 0.42)	0		27 (93.10%)	(0.84, 1.03)
4	Comprehensive literature search strategy	16 (55.17%)	(0.31, 0.80)	13 (44.83%)	(0.18, 0.72)	0
5	Study selection in duplicate?	22 (75.86%)	(0.58, 0.94)	1 (3.45%)	(−0.32, 0.39)	6 (20.69%)	(−0.12, 0.53)
6	Data extraction in duplicate?	22 (75.86%)	(0.58, 0.94)	0		7 (24.14%)	(−0.08, 0.56)
7	List of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?	0		0		29 (100%)
8	Study characteristics	14 (48.27%)	(0.22, 0.74)	14 (48.27%)	(0.22, 0.74)	1 (3.45%)	(−0.32, 0.39)
9	Satisfactory technique for assessing risk of bias?	27 (93.10%)	(0.84, 1.03)	1 (3.45%)	(−0.32, 0.39)	1 (3.45%)	(−0.32, 0.39)
10	Sources of funding for each study?	0		0		29 (100%)
11	Appropriate methods?	23 (79.31%)	(0.63, 0.96)	3 (10.34%)	(−0.24, 0.45)	3 (10.34%)	(−0.24, 0.45)
12	Assess potential impact of risk of bias on the results?	16 (55.17%)	(0.31, 0.80)	1 (3.45%)	(−0.32, 0.39)	12 (41.38%)	(0.14, 0.69)
13	Account for risk of bias when interpreting/discussing?	16 (55.17%)	(0.31, 0.80)	5 (17.24%)	(−0.16, 0.50)	8 (27.59%)	(−0.03, 0.59)
14	Satisfactory explanation for and discussion of any heterogeneity?	14 (48.27%)	(0.29, 0.81)	2 (6.90%)	(−0.28, 0.42)	13 (44.83%)	(0.18, 0.72)
15	Publication bias (small sample bias) assessed and discussed?	13 (44.83%)	(0.18, 0.72)	4 (13.79%)	(−0.20, 0.48)	12 (41.38%)	(0.14, 0.69)
16	Publication bias (small sample bias) assessed and discussed?	11 (37.93%)	(0.09, 0.67)	15 (51.72%)	(0.26, 0.77)	3 (10.34%)	(−0.24, 0.45)