Editing Acupuncture (section)

=== Publication bias ===
[[Publication bias]] is cited as a concern in the reviews of [[randomized controlled trial]]s of acupuncture.<ref name=Colquhoun2013/><ref name=Lee2006>{{cite journal | vauthors = Lee A, Copas JB, Henmi M, Gin T, Chung RC | title = Publication bias affected the estimate of postoperative nausea in an acupoint stimulation systematic review | journal = Journal of Clinical Epidemiology | volume = 59 | issue = 9 | pages = 980–83 | date = September 2006 | pmid = 16895822 | doi = 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.003 }}</ref><ref name=Tang1999>{{cite journal | vauthors = Tang JL, Zhan SY, Ernst E | title = Review of randomised controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine | journal = BMJ | volume = 319 | issue = 7203 | pages = 160–61 | date = July 1999 | pmid = 10406751 | pmc = 28166 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.319.7203.160 }}</ref> A 1998 review of studies on acupuncture found that trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were uniformly favourable to acupuncture, as were ten out of eleven studies conducted in Russia.<ref name=Vickers1998>{{cite journal | vauthors = Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R | title = Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials | journal = Controlled Clinical Trials | volume = 19 | issue = 2 | pages = 159–66 | date = April 1998 | pmid = 9551280 | doi = 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00150-5 | s2cid = 18860471 }}</ref> A 2011 assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials on traditional Chinese medicine, including acupuncture, concluded that the methodological quality of most such trials (including randomization, experimental control, and blinding) was generally poor, particularly for trials published in Chinese journals (though the quality of acupuncture trials was better than the trials testing traditional Chinese medicine remedies).<ref name=He-2011/> The study also found that trials published in non-Chinese journals tended to be of higher quality.<ref name=He-2011>{{cite journal | vauthors = He J, Du L, Liu G, Fu J, He X, Yu J, Shang L | title = Quality assessment of reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in traditional Chinese medicine RCTs: a review of 3159 RCTs identified from 260 systematic reviews | journal = Trials | volume = 12 | issue = 1 | pages = 122 | date = May 2011 | pmid = 21569452 | pmc = 3114769 | doi = 10.1186/1745-6215-12-122 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Chinese authors use more Chinese studies, which have been demonstrated to be uniformly positive.<ref name=Ernst2012>{{cite journal | vauthors = Ernst E | title = Acupuncture: what does the most reliable evidence tell us? An update | journal = Journal of Pain and Symptom Management | volume = 43 | issue = 2 | pages = e11–13 | date = February 2012 | pmid = 22248792 | doi = 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.11.001 | doi-access = free }}</ref> A 2012 review of 88 systematic reviews of acupuncture published in Chinese journals found that less than half of these reviews reported testing for publication bias, and that the majority of these reviews were published in journals with [[impact factor]]s of zero.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Ma B, Qi GQ, Lin XT, Wang T, Chen ZM, Yang KH | title = Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions published in Chinese journals | journal = Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine | volume = 18 | issue = 9 | pages = 813–17 | date = September 2012 | pmid = 22924413 | doi = 10.1089/acm.2011.0274 }}</ref> A 2015 study comparing pre-registered records of acupuncture trials with their published results found that it was uncommon for such trials to be registered before the trial began. This study also found that selective reporting of results and changing outcome measures to obtain statistically significant results was common in this literature.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Su CX, Han M, Ren J, Li WY, Yue SJ, Hao YF, Liu JP | title = Empirical evidence for outcome reporting bias in randomized clinical trials of acupuncture: comparison of registered records and subsequent publications | journal = Trials | volume = 16 | issue = 1 | pages = 28 | date = January 2015 | pmid = 25626862 | pmc = 4320495 | doi = 10.1186/s13063-014-0545-5 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

Scientist [[Steven Salzberg]] identifies acupuncture and Chinese medicine generally as a focus for "fake medical journals" such as the ''[[Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies]]'' and ''[[Acupuncture in Medicine]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2017/01/03/fake-medical-journals-are-spreading-and-they-are-filled-with-bad-science/|title=Fake Medical Journals Are Spreading, And They Are Filled With Bad Science|first=Steven|last=Salzberg|website=[[Forbes]]|access-date=21 August 2017|archive-date=24 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113043/https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2017/01/03/fake-medical-journals-are-spreading-and-they-are-filled-with-bad-science/|url-status=live}}</ref>