MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520965644 · doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1337-0

Efficacy and safety assessment of acupuncture and nimodipine to treat mild cognitive impairment after cerebral infarction: a randomized controlled trial

2016· article· en· W2520965644 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shuhua Wang, Hong‐Ling Yang, Jie Zhang, Bin Zhang, Tao Liu, Lu Gan, Jiangang Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsNimodipineMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentAcupunctureCerebral infarctionRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaInternal medicinePhysical therapyDementiaIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral infarction frequently leads to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Prompt management of MCI can prevent vascular dementia and improve patient outcome. This single center randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture and nimodipine to treat post-cerebral infarction MCI. METHODS: A total of 126 Chinese patients with post-cerebral infarction MCI recruited from the First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine between April 2013 and June 2014 were randomized at 1:1: 1 ratio into nimodipine alone (30 mg/time and 3 times daily), acupuncture alone (30 min/time, 6 times/week), and nimodipine + acupuncture groups. The treatments were 3 months. Cognitive function was evaluated using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale at enrollment interview, at the end of 3-month therapy, and at the post-treatment 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: The per-protocol set included 39, 40, and 40 patients from nimodipine alone, acupuncture alone, and the combination group, respectively, was analyzed. Intra-group comparison revealed that MoCA score at the follow-up improved significantly by 15.8 ± 10.9, 20.9 ± 13.8 %, and 30.2 ± 19.7 % compared with the baseline MoCA for nimodipine alone, acupuncture alone, and the combination group, respectively. Inter-group comparison demonstrated that the combination therapy improved MoCA score (5.5 ± 2.2) at significantly higher extent than nimodipine alone (3.1 ± 1.8) and acupuncture alone (4.3 ± 2.3) at the follow-up (All P < 0.05), and significantly higher proportion of patients in acupuncture alone group (80 %) and the combination therapy group (90 %) than in nimodipine alone group (56.4 %) showed ≥12 % MoCA score improvement compared with the baseline MoCA (All P < 0.05). No adverse event was reported during the study. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture may be used as an additional therapy to conventional pharmacological treatment to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients with post-cerebral infarction MCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ , Unique Identifier: ChiCTR-IOR-15007366 ). The date of registration is November 4, 2015.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207