Abstract:Background There are debates in acupuncture related systematic reviews and meta-analyses on whether searching Chinese databases to get more Chinese-language studies may increase the risk of bias and overestimate the effect size, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differ between Chinese and non-Chinese populations. Methods In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Cochrane library from its inception until December 2021, and identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses with acupuncture as one of the interventions. Paired reviewers independently screened the reviews and extracted the information. We repeated the meta-analysis of the selected outcomes to separately pool the results of Chinese- and non-Chinese-language acupuncture studies and presented the pooled estimates as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the Ratio of ORs (ROR) by dividing the OR of the Chinese-language trials by the OR of the non-Chinese-language trials, and the ROR by dividing the OR of trials addressing Chinese population by the OR of trials addressing non-Chinese population. We explored whether the impact of a high risk of bias on the effect size differed between studies published in Chinese- and in non-Chinese-language, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differed between Chinese and non-Chinese population. Results We identified 84 Cochrane acupuncture reviews involving 33 Cochrane groups, of which 31 reviews (37%) searched Chinese databases. Searching versus not searching Chinese databases significantly increased the contribution of Chinese-language literature both to the total number of included trials (54% vs. 15%) and the sample size (40% vs. 15%). When compared with non-Chinese-language trials, Chinese-language trials were associated with a larger effect size (pooled ROR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91). We also observed a higher risk of bias in Chinese-language trials in blinding of participants and personnel (97% vs. 51%) and blinding of outcome assessment (93% vs. 47%). The higher risk of bias was associated with a larger effect estimate in both Chinese-language (allocation concealment: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87) and non-Chinese-language studies (blinding of participants and personnel: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). However, we found no evidence that the higher risk of bias would increase the effect size of acupuncture in Chinese-language studies more often than in non-Chinese-language studies (the confidence intervals of all ROR in the high-risk group included 1, Table 3). We further found acupuncture appeared to be more effective in Chinese than in non-Chinese population (Table 4). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest the higher risk of bias may lead to an overestimation of the treatment effects of acupuncture but would not increase the treatment effects in Chinese-language studies more often than in other language studies. The difference in treatment effects of acupuncture was probably associated with differences in population characteristics. Trial registration We registered our protocol on the Open Science Framework (OSF) ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PZ6XR ).

Epidemiology, Quality, and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture Interventions Published in Chinese Journals

Epidemiology, Quality And Reporting Characteristics Of Systematic Reviews Of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published In Chinese Journals

Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture.

Reporting Characteristics and Quality of Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture Analgesia

Epidemiology, Quality, and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions Published in Chinese Journals

Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study

Epidemiology, Methodological And Reporting Characteristics Of Systematic Reviews Of Nursing Interventions Published In China

Assessment of methodology and report quality of systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of acupuncture-moxibustion in China]

Do the CONSORT and STRICTA Checklists Improve the Reporting Quality of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Chinese Journals? A Systematic Review and Analysis of Trends

Reporting quality of acupuncture overviews: A methodological investigation based on the PRIOR statement

Suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials on non-pharmacological therapies in Chinese medicine

Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews Published in “Evidence-Based” Chinese Journals

Clinical Epidemiology in China Series. Paper 3: the Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published by China' Researchers in English-language is Higher Than Those Published in Chinese-language

The Relationship of Publication Language, Study Population, Risk of Bias, and Treatment Effects in Acupuncture Related Systematic Reviews: a Meta-Epidemiologic Study.

The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China.

Use and Reporting of Risk of Bias Tools in 825 Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture: a Cross-Sectional Study.

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

Status Survey on Systematic Review/Meta-analysis Related to Interventions Published in the Chinese Journals Entitled with Evidence-Based

Assessment of methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis published in Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology

Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Traditional Chinese Medicine Published in Chinese Journals

Reporting and Methodological Quality of Acupuncture Network Meta-Analyses Could Be Improved: an Evidence Mapping