MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4368364151 · doi:10.1186/s12888-023-04749-1

Acupuncture for post-stroke depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4368364151 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineRandomized controlled trialPharmacotherapyPost-stroke depressionStroke (engine)Depression (economics)Physical therapyAcupunctureStrictly standardized mean differenceAnxietySystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicinePsychiatryRehabilitationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with post-stroke depression (PSD) usually experience anxiety, hopelessness, and insomnia, which have a negative impact on their daily activities and post-stroke rehabilitation. Acupuncture (AC), as a minimally invasive technique, has become a popular choice for improving depression symptoms. However, it is still unclear which therapy is associated with the best outcomes for PSD. In this review, we aimed to explore the impact of AC in alleviating symptoms of PSD and to evaluate the difference in effectiveness between AC combined with pharmacotherapies and various non-pharmacotherapies. METHODS: Six databases and three clinical trials registration platforms were searched from inception to March 2023. Randomized clinical trial comparing needle-based AC with pharmacotherapy, and other non-pharmacotherapy or invalid group were included. Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies, and collected data using a pre-made form. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to assess and compare different techniques using RStudio 3.6.0 with the package 'GEMTC' V.0.8.1. The primary outcome was the efficacy for PSD assessed by scales measuring depressive symptoms. The secondary outcomes were effectiveness for neurological function and the quality of life. The ranking probabilities for all treatment interventions was performed using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA). The risk of bias was assessed by using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies, involving 5308 participants published from 2003 to 2022, were included. The results showed that compared with western medicine (WM) (defined as pharmacotherapy for PSD), AC alone or with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (RTMS), Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) alone or with WM, were superior for alleviating depression symptoms. Compared to Usual Care, AC alone or plus other therapies could significantly decrease scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating scale. According to result of SUCRA, AC plus RTMS had the highest probability of improving depressive symptoms with a probability of 49.43%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that AC alone or combined with other therapies appears to be effective in improving depression symptoms of stroke survivors. Moreover, in comparison to WM, AC alone or plus RTMS, TCM, TCM with WM, or WM, were more effective in improving depression symptoms of PSD. Also, AC with RTMS seems to be the most effective with the highest probability. REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database in November 2020 and updated in July 2021. The registration number is CRD42020218752.

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.

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), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.014
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.271 · 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