Reproducibility of Published Meta‐Analyses on Acupuncture for Irritable Bowel Syndrome

ABSTRACT Objective Published meta‐analytic results should be reproducible from information available to readers. We assessed the numerical reproducibility of pairwise meta‐analytic estimates of acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods We searched six English‐ and Chinese‐language databases. Eligible systematic reviews reported at least one direct pairwise meta‐analysis with recoverable study‐level inputs. Each eligible pooled estimate was recomputed. The primary outcome was result‐level numerical reproducibility. A prespecified standardized reanalysis was a key secondary analysis. Proportions used review‐clustered robust variance estimation. Results Twenty‐three systematic reviews contributed 176 pooled estimates. Of these, 144 (81.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 71.4%–92.2%) reproduced exactly, 21 (11.9%, 95% CI 4.2%–19.7%) approximately, and 11 (6.3%, 95% CI 1.4%–11.1%) showed substantive numerical discrepancies. All 11 exceeded the 5% threshold for CI width, whereas 10 retained point estimates within 5% of the published value. No original‐method recomputation changed whether the 95% CI excluded the null value. I 2 reproduced within one percentage point for 162 estimates (92.0%). The text and forest plot disagreed on the analytic model for 12 of 168 evaluable estimates (7.1%). Under the standardized framework, 26 of 174 estimable results (14.9%; 95% CI 7.5%–22.3%) changed from statistically significant to nonsignificant. Conclusions Published pooled estimates were generally reproducible when study‐level inputs were recoverable, although uncertainty estimates were more sensitive than point estimates. Complete, internally consistent reporting and availability of data and code would facilitate independent verification.