Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine No. 5(e). “Stimulation” refers to techniques in manual and electroacupuncture, for manual acupuncture: lifting, thrusting, or rotating; for electroacupuncture: the current, frequency, and amplitude. No. 5(f). If the treatments were individualized “retention time” must be reported as a mean and range. No. 5(g). It must state the gauge, length, and material and/or the manufacturer of the needles. No. 6(a). If treatments were individualized, then the mean and range of the number of treatments must be stated. No. 6(b). If the protocol was one treatment, then the frequency is “N/A”. No. 7. It refers only to cointerventions within the scope of acupuncture licensure. If the protocol speciﬁes the option of prescribed self-help treatments, for example, exercise advice, stretching, or qi gong, these must also be described. No. 8(a). “Duration of practitioner training” can be implied, for example, LAc or a similar indication of formal training, (e.g., German Physicians Society of Acupuncture). No. 8(b). “Clinical experience” refers to number of years in practice as an acupuncturist. No. 8(c). “Expertise” must include experience, as an acupuncturist, with the condition under investigation. Nos. 9(a–d). A no-treatment control is to be scored in the same manner as a sham or comparison control. No. 9(a). “Intended eﬀect” refers to the speciﬁc rationale for choosing the control (including no treatment), in relation to the research question and methodology. No. 9(b). “Speciﬁc explanations” refers to the speciﬁc wording the patient receives regarding the treatment and control procedures. This information is needed, for example, since describing a sham procedure as “a type of acupunc- ture” may aﬀect outcomes diﬀerently than stating “it isn’t acupuncture.” No. 9(c). “Details” refers to a precise description of the control intervention including (if applicable, e.g., invasive sham) the parameters of needling (nos. 5(a–g)). This includes “no treatment” controls, for example, who may have been required to keep diaries. If no tracking was performed, it must be stated. No. 9(d). “Justiﬁcation” refers to citing journals, textbooks, practitioner survey, or an expert consensus panel. No. 10(a). If objectives are clearly implied but not “speciﬁ- cally stated,” a “Yes” may be scored. No. 10(b). The actual word “hypothesis” or a valid substitute, for example, theory, must be used. No. 11(a). It must explicitly state (i) the primary outcome(s) and (ii) how it (they) was measured. If the primary outcome was not speciﬁcally indicated, partial credit can be awarded. (The primary outcome is usually used in the sample size calculation.) 9 No. 11(b). If particular steps were taken to increase the relia- bility of the measurements, suﬃcient details of the steps must be presented; for example, range of motion was assessed with a goniometer, and three successive measurements were averaged to increase reliability. No. 12(a). It must include statements regarding estimated eﬀect size of the intervention based on (i) previous research and (ii) estimated attrition rate. If the study was a pilot then a statement such as “No data exists upon which to base a sample size calculation” must be included. No. 12(b). “Interim analysis and stopping rules” pertains to long-term trials and may not be applicable to trials of shorter duration. If authors report that interim analyses were performed, the number of assessments and statistical tests must be reported. No. 13(a). Suﬃcient and speciﬁc information must be pro- vided regarding the methods utilized to generate the random allocation scheme, for example, a computer-generated table. Simply stating that patients were randomly assigned is not suﬃcient to determine the likelihood of bias. No. 13(b). If randomization restrictions were utilized, for example, stratiﬁcation or blocking, the methods and details must be stated. No. 14(a). “Implementation” refers to how the random assignment was applied; for example, a sealed envelope containing the computer generated-group assignment was placed in the patient’s chart. No. 14(b). Concealment is required to prevent foreknowl- edge of and introduction of bias in treatment assign- ment, for example, the sealed envelope with group assign- ment was opened after the patient passed the base- line neurological exam and received a TCM diﬀerential diagnosis. No. 15(a). It must speciﬁcally state the person responsible for generating the randomization. No. 15(b). It refers to the speciﬁc person(s) responsible for consenting the participants. No. 15(c). It refers to the person who assigned participants to their respective randomized groups. This may likely refer to the person who informed practitioners, directly or indirectly, of the participant’s group assignments. “Indirectly” may involve the preplacement of the group assignment in the patient chart. If “this” person also generated the randomiza- tion scheme, the authors should report how the potential for biased group assignments was addressed (e.g., randomiza- tion schedule was kept in a locked closet from “this” person). No. 16(a). It must state that patients were blinded to group assignments, for example, a statement that the trial was single-blinded. If the trial was a comparison of active treatments, for example, acupuncture versus massage, this will be scored N/A. No. 16(b). This will usually be scored N/A. In the rare case that the study did blind the practitioners, there must be an explicit statement regarding the method utilized.