Acupuncture for post-stroke cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). Methods: The Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical (VIP), Wanfang, and Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM) databases were electronically searched from their inception to 10 April 2019. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scale were used as outcomes to assess effectiveness with respect to cognitive function. Assessment of risk of bias (ROB) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Data were analyzed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3. Results: A total of 28 trials with 2144 participants were included in the qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. Four of the 28 trials (14%) were assessed as being at overall low ROB, 24 of the 28 trials (86%) were assessed as having overall high ROB. The quality of evidence for both MoCA and MMSE were deemed to be very low by the GRADE criteria. Results indicated that acupuncture groups may be benefiting more than non-acupuncture groups with respect to variation of MoCA scores (merged mean difference (MMD): 2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.18 to 3.13, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity: χ 2 = 35.52, p = 0.0007, I 2 = 63%), and the heterogeneity decreased in both subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. In addition, acupuncture groups might be benefiting more than non-acupuncture groups in terms of changes in MMSE score (MMD = 2.97, 95% CI = 2.13 to 3.80, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity: χ 2 = 269.75; p < 0.00001; I 2 = 92%), and the heterogeneity decreased in subgroup analysis. Only one RCT addressed adverse events, and the symptoms were mild and did not affect treatment and evaluation. Conclusion: Acupuncture could be effective and safe for PSCI. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the high ROB of included trials and very low quality of evidence for assessed outcomes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".