Acupuncture for Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebral palsy (CP), a childhood disease of high morbidity and serious harmfulness, has no effective therapies to completely relieve the associated pain. Acupuncture has been used widely in China to alleviate several CP symptoms, such as pain and motion disorders, despite the deficiency of high-quality evidence related to this practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review protocol is to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of children with CP. METHODS: The following electronic databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBASE, Springer, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-fang database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and other sources. All published randomized controlled trials from inception to December 2016 will be included. RevMan V.5.3 software will be implemented for the assessment of bias risk, data synthesis, subgroup analysis, and meta-analyses if inclusion conditions are met. Individuals recruited into the trials will include children with all types of CP, and these individuals will be involved as coresearchers to develop and evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of children with CP. Due to language barriers, only English and Chinese articles will be retrieved. RESULTS: The systematic review will synthesize the available knowledge surrounding acupuncture for children with CP. The findings will be synthesized to determine the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for children with CP. CONCLUSIONS: The review has not been completed. This protocol presents a proper method to implement the systematic review, and ensures transparency for the completed review. Findings from the systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and results will be presented at relevant conferences. The data of individual patients will not be included, so ethical approval is not required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016038275, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016038275 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation/6nGxoJrqm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.013 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".