Cognitive improvement effects of electro-acupuncture for the treatment of MCI compared with Western medications: a systematic review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Almost half of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients progress to dementia, which is associated with decreased quality of life and obstacles to independent living. Relevant management is expected to prevent MCI patients from progressing to dementia. In recent years, electroacupuncture (EA) has been used to treat various kinds of neurological disorders including MCI. This study evaluates the use of EA for MCI patients to increase cognitive function through a comparison with Western medications. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) or systematical reviews (SR) of EA versus Western medications for MCI were searched using the following 10 databases: Pubmed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), National Digital Science Library (NDSL), Journal of Oriental Neuropsychiatry (JON), Korean Medical Database (KMBASE), KoreaMed, and OASIS, from October 2007 to August 2017, without language restriction. A methodological quality assessment of RCTs or SRs that met inclusion criteria was conducted using Cochrane Risk of bias (RoB) tool and a meta-analysis by RevMan (Review Manager) 5.3.5 version of Cochrane collaboration. RESULTS: Five RCTs with 257 patients met inclusion criteria and those were randomly divided into two groups: the EA group (n = 103) and Western medications group (n = 154). The methodological quality of the included studies showed high risk or/and unclear of risk of bias. The meta-analysis of five studies reported that the EA group was better than the Western medications group, improving the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score by 0.65 [95% CI 0.28~1.01] higher mean difference, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score by 0.66 [95% CI 0.00~1.32] higher mean difference. Adverse effects were not reported in the selected studies. CONCLUSION: Electroacupuncture was an effective treatment for MCI patients by improving cognitive function. However, the included studies presented a low methodological quality and no adverse effects were reported. Thus, further comprehensive studies with a design in depth are needed to derive significant results.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".