MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391841575 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2024.1341074

The efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

2024· review· en· W4391841575 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lingling Liu, Claire Shuiqing Zhang, Anthony Lin Zhang, Yefeng Cai, Charlie Changli Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicinal Plants and Neuroprotection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhou University of Chinese MedicineRMIT University
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboMeta-analysisAdverse effectMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCognitive impairmentCognitionClinical trialPhysical therapyPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Effective and safe treatments for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are limited. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is commonly used in China to manage MCI. However, its efficacy and safety remain uncertain. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CHM for MCI. Methods: Nine databases were searched from their inceptions to January 2023. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of oral CHM for MCI were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated via the GRADE approach. Results: Thirteen studies, involving 1,043 participants, were analyzed. Most of the studies (10 out of 13) were associated with “some concerns” regarding the overall risk of bias. Meta-analyses results indicated that CHM significantly improved cognitive function compared to placebo in terms of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (MD: 1.90 [1.22, 2.58], I 2 = 87%, 11 studies, 823 participants) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (MD: 2.88 [1.69, 4.06], I 2 = 81%, 3 studies, 241 participants). The certainty of evidence for MMSE was assessed as “moderate”, while it was “low” for MoCA. One study did not report adverse events (AEs), one study reported no statistical difference between the groups in terms of AEs, and 11 studies provided detailed numbers of AE cases where gastrointestinal symptoms were the most commonly reported AEs. Two studies reported no SAEs among participants and one study found no significant difference in SAEs proportions between groups. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in AEs between the two groups (RR: 1.31 [0.92, 1.87), I 2 = 0%, 11 studies, 839 participants). The cognitive-enhancing function of commonly used herbs ( Panax ginseng C.A.Mey., Acorus calamus var. angustatus Besser, and Polygala tenuifolia Willd.) may be attributed to mechanisms including antioxidant, anti-apoptotic, anti-neurotoxic, anti-cytotoxic, and anti-inflammatory actions. Conclusion: Chinese herbal medicine holds potential as an effective intervention to improve cognitive function in MCI patients, supported by meta-analyses evidence of low to moderate certainty. Although current data suggests CHM is generally safe, caution is advised due to the lack of AE reporting or detailed information in some instances. Systematic Review Registration : https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=400292 , identifier [CRD42023400292].

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0470.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicMedicinal Plants and NeuroprotectionFrench-language works237,207