MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297546260 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.977518

Comparative efficacy of 5 non-pharmacological therapies for adults with post-stroke cognitive impairment: A Bayesian network analysis based on 55 randomized controlled trials

2022· article· en· W4297546260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qiang Li, Lei Yang, Hang-Jian Qiu, Xiaoqian Wang, Chengcheng Zhang, Yuejuan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Commission of Hunan Province
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisMedicineAcupunctureMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionStroke (engine)MEDLINECognitive rehabilitation therapyRehabilitationPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentPsychiatryInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: As a common sequela after stroke, cognitive impairment negatively impacts patients' activities of daily living and overall rehabilitation. Non-pharmacological therapies have recently drawn widespread attention for their potential in improving cognitive function. However, the optimal choice of non-pharmacological therapies for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) is still unclear. Hence, in this study, we compared and ranked 5 non-pharmacological therapies for PSCI with a Bayesian Network Meta-analysis (NMA), to offer a foundation for clinical treatment decision-making. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wangfang Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database were searched from database inception to December 31, 2021, to collect Randomized Controlled Trials for PSCI. All of the studies were assessed (according to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews) and then data were extracted by two researchers separately. Pairwise meta-analysis for direct comparisons was performed using Revman. NMA of Bayesian hierarchical model was performed by WinBUGS and ADDIS. STATA was used to construct network evidence plots and funnel plots. Results: A total of 55 trials (53 Two-arm trials and 2 Three-arm trials) with 3,092 individuals were included in this study. In the pair-wise meta-analysis, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VR), Computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation (CA), Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), and Acupuncture were superior to normal cognition training in terms of MoCA, MMSE, and BI outcomes. Bayesian NMA showed that the MoCA outcome ranked Acupuncture (84.7%) as the best therapy and TMS (79.7%) as the second. The MMSE outcome ranked TMS (76.1%) as the best therapy and Acupuncture as the second (72.1%). For BI outcome, TMS (89.1%) ranked the best. Conclusions: TMS and Acupuncture had a better effect on improving cognitive function in post-stroke patients according to our Bayesian NMA. However, this conclusion still needs to be confirmed with large sample size and high-quality randomized controlled trials. Registration: https://inplasy.com (No. INPLASY202260036).

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 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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.064
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207