Objective To evaluate the report quality of Chinese and English randomized controlled trials（RCTs） of acupuncture based on the CONSORT statement and STRICTA checklist. Methods The Chinese and English RCTs of acupuncture published from January 1

2015 to December 31

2019 were searched in 7 databases including PubMed. The report quality of the included RCTs was evaluated with the CONSORT 2010 statement and STRICTA checklist. Results A total of 506 Chinese RCTs and 76 English RCTs were included. According to the CONSORT statement

in Chinese RCTs

the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 78.38% of all items

and the report rate of 25 items

such as background and reason

study design

outcome index

and sample size

was less than 10%. In English RCTs

the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 35.14% of all items

and 5 items had a report rate of less than 10%. The difference of the report rate of 15 items

such as background

reason and study design

was more than 50% between Chinese and English RCTs. The report rate of all items of STRICTA checklist was relatively high in both Chinese and English RCTs. In Chinese RCTs

the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 29.41% of all items

which included acupuncture rationale and depth of insertion. In English RCTs

only two items had a report rate less than 50%

which were acupuncture rationale

setting and context of treatment. The report rate of five items

including needle retention time

frequency and duration of treatment sessions

details of other interventions administered to the acupuncture group

setting and context of treatment

and precise description of the control or comparator in Chinese RCTs

were higher than in English RCTs. Conclusion The report quality of Chinese acupuncture RCT needs to be improved urgently

and corresponding measures should be taken to further standardize the writing and reporting of acupuncture clinical research.