Efficacy and safety of herbal medicine on dementia and cognitive function: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to summarize the effects of herbs on dementia and assess the strength of evidence. Six international and local databases were searched from inception to October 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials investigated the effects of herbal medicine on dementia or cognitive function. Two researchers independently extracted data, assessed the methodological quality, and rated the credibility of evidence according to established criteria. Thirty-seven articles evaluating 13 herbal medicines were included. Of these, 65% were rated critically low using AMSTAR2. Of 90 unique outcomes, 41 (45.6%) were statistically significant based on random effects model (p ≤ .05). Only 3 herbs were supported by suggestive evidence whereas the others were supported by weak evidence. The suggestive evidence supported benefits of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) plus pharmacotherapy (WMD:1.84; 95% CI: 1.34, 2.35) and Vinpocetine (WMD: -0.94; 95%CI: -1.50, -0.38) on improving cognitive function assessing by Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Syndrom-Kurz-Test, respectively. Moreover, suggestive evidence supported benefit of Huperzia serrata on improving Activities of Daily Living (WMD:-7.18; 95%CI: -9.12, -5.23). No SAE was reported. In conclusion, several herbs were used for improving dementia and cognitive function but recent evidence were limited by the small sample size and poor methodological quality. Therefore, further large and well-designed studies are needed to support the evidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".