MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313622609 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.1091125

Acupuncture for mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

2023· review· en· W4313622609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zihan Yin, Yaqin Li, Cheng Jiang, Manze Xia, Zhenghong Chen, Xinyue Zhang, Ling Zhao, Fanrong Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAcupunctureMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPhysical therapyConfidence intervalSubgroup analysisCognitionSample size determinationInternal medicineCognitive impairmentPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of acupuncture for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and there is no consensus on its efficacy. This review aimed to determine the acupuncture effect in patients with MCI. Methods: Relevant and potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for MCI were obtained from four Chinese databases, four English databases, and additional resources up to 1 August 2022. The primary outcome was the improvement in overall cognitive function (OCF). Secondary outcomes were improved memory function (MF) and activities of daily living (ADLs). The revised Cochrane collaboration risk of bias (ROB) assessment tool (ROB 2.0) was applied to evaluate their methodological quality. The Review Manager software v 5.4 was used for analyses. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) 0.9.5.10 β software was used to estimate the required sample size and test the reliability of the pooled outcome. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Results: This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs with a total of 602 patients. The methodological quality of all trials was moderate. Low-quality evidence showed that acupuncture significantly improved OCF (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE): mean difference (MD) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.66; the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA): MD = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.47-1.97). In subgroup analyses, it was revealed that acupuncture significantly increased OCF in patients with MCI when compared to conventional medicine (CM) and sham acupuncture (SA). TSA's findings indicated that the evidence of improving OCF with acupuncture for patients with MCI was conclusive. Meanwhile, there is no statistical difference in the improvement of MF and ADL between acupuncture and CM. TSA showed that the evidence of improving MF and ADL for patients who had MCI and received acupuncture was inconclusive. The shreds of evidence of improving MF and ADL were ranked from low to critically low. Conclusion: Acupuncture appears to be an effective clinical application method for improving OCF in patients with MCI. However, due to low-quality evidence, more relevant and high-quality research is needed in this field. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021291284, PROSPERO, No. CRD42021291284.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207