Efficacy and safety of acupuncture on childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will electronically search PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biomedical Literature Database, China Science Journal Database, and Wan-fang Database from their inception. Also, we will manually retrieve other resources, including reference lists of identified publications, conference articles, and grey literature. The clinical randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials related to acupuncture treating pediatric ADHD will be included in the study. The language is limited to Chinese and English. Research selection, data extraction, and research quality assessment will be independently completed by 2 researchers. Data were synthesized by using a fixed effect model or random effect model depend on the heterogeneity test. The scores of Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R), Conners Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS-R), and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) will be the primary outcomes. Besides, the scores of the Conners Continuous Performance Test, Internal Restlessness Scale, and Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC), and the possible adverse events will also be assessed as secondary outcomes. RevMan V.5.3 statistical software will be used for meta-analysis, and the level of evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Continuous data will be expressed in the form of weighted mean difference or standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while dichotomous data will be expressed in the form of relative risk with 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of this systematic review (SR) does not require ethical approval because it does not involve humans. We will publish this article in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF Registries, DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XVYP9 (https://osf.io/xvyp9).
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".