Empirical evidence for outcome reporting bias in randomized clinical trials of acupuncture: comparison of registered records and subsequent publications

Table 4 Comparison of methodological components between registered records and subsequent publications of randomized clinical trials on acupuncture

Items	Total inconsistency rate (%)	Inconsistency rate of trials from western countries (%)	Inconsistency rate of trials from eastern countries (%)
Study design¹	7.0	10.5	0.0
Arms²	11.5	12.5	8.3
Intervention³	8.4	11.3	0.0
Control²	22.9	26.4	12.5
Sample size³	22.1	28.2	4.2
Inclusion criteria³	54.7	57.7	45.8
Exclusion criteria⁴	47.9	54.2	34.8
Generation of allocation sequences⁵	0.0	0.0	0.0
Allocation concealment⁶	0.0	0.0	0.0
Blinding of participants⁷	16.7	20.0	10.0
Blinding of personnel⁸	18.0	19.5	15.0
Blinding of outcome assessors⁹	22.8	21.6	25.0

¹A comparison was available in 57 articles, of which 38 were from western countries.
²A comparison was available in 96 articles, of which 72 were from western countries.
³A comparison was available in 95 articles, of which 71 were from western countries.
⁴A comparison was available in 71 articles, of which 48 were from western countries.
⁵A comparison was available in 3 articles, of which 1 were from western countries.
⁶A comparison was available in 2 articles, of which 1 were from western countries.
⁷A comparison was available in 60 articles, of which 40 were from western countries.
⁸A comparison was available in 61 articles, of which 41 were from western countries.
⁹A comparison was available in 57 articles, of which 37 were from western countries.

ISSN: 1745-6215