MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767870738 · doi:10.1136/acupmed-2016-011167

Retraction: Effect of Acupuncture and Chinese Herbal Medicine on Subacute Stroke Outcomes: A Single Center Randomized Controlled Trial

2017· article· en· W2767870738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonDuplication of/in Article;Salami Slicing;
Date2/15/2018 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcupuncture in Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcupunctureRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyAlternative medicineTraditional Chinese medicineStroke (engine)Traditional medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To determine whether integrative medicine, combining acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine with conventional rehabilitation during subacute stroke, is an effective comprehensive rehabilitation strategy for daily life activities, neurological deficits, motor dysfunction, cognitive impairment and depression. Design Randomised controlled trial: patients were randomly assigned to a conventional rehabilitation (CR) group or an integrative medicine rehabilitation (IMR) group with CR plus acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine. Setting Single-centre inpatient teaching hospital, China Participants 120 Patients aged 35–80 years, with a recent first incidence of subacute ischaemic stroke Main outcome measures Measured at baseline (week 0), mid-point (week 4), week 8 and follow-up (week 20). Primary outcome measurement Modified Barthel Index (MBI) Secondary outcome measurements The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; Fugl-Meyer Assessment; the Mini-Mental State Examination; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; depression, Hamilton’s Depression Scale; Self-Rating Depression Scale. Results The primary outcome measurement, MBI, showed significant improvement in the IMR group compared with the CR group. The IMR group also showed significant improvement across all of the secondary outcome measures (repeated-measures analysis of variance group*time; independent Student’s t test). Limitations A small placebo bias may exist, but measures were undertaken to limit it. Sample sizes for cognitive impairment and depression in this study were small. Results cannot be generalised to one type of treatment only. Conclusion This trial, evaluating a treatment protocol commonly used in clinical practice, demonstrates that comprehensive rehabilitation including acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine may comprehensively improve subacute stroke outcomes. Trial registration number ChiCTR-TRC-12001972.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Research integrity

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designRandomized trial · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcupuncture in MedicineSame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesCategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207