Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD) by meta-analysis, in order to provide evidence-based evidence for the application of acupuncture therapy in the clinical process of AD. Methods From the establishment of the database to December 31, 2022, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Network (CNKI), VIP database, WanFang Database, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library Database were systematically searched. To collect published randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTS) of acupuncture in the treatment of cognitive impairment in AD. The subjects in the intervention group were given acupuncture alone or combined with other treatments the same as the control group; the control group received conventional Western medicine treatment. The main outcome indicators of the study were cognitive function assessment of subjects, including: Simple Mental State Examination Scale (MMSE), Assessment of daily Living Ability Scale (ADL), Alzheimer's Disease Cognitive Function Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog), TCM syndrome score (SDSD), Montreal Cognitive Test (MoCA), Secondary outcome indicators were the occurrence of adverse reactions. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation of the included literature were performed independently by two researchers, according to bias risk assessment tools recommended in the Cochrane manual. Data were analyzed by RevMan5.3 software. Dichotomous variables were represented by risk ratio (OR) and 95% CI, and continuity variables were represented by mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. For heterogeneity analysis, when P > 0.1 and I 2 ≤ 50%, fixed effect model was applied. When P ≤ 0.1 and I 2 > 50%, the random effects model is applied. Results A total of 1,172 eligible subjects were included in 18 RCTS, including 595 in the intervention group and 577 in the control group. The results of meta-analysis are as follows: acupuncture intervention group improved MMSE [MD = 1.67, 95% CI (0.94, 2.41), P < 0.00001], ADL [MD = −1.18, 95% CI (−3.09, 0.72), P = 0.22], ADAS-Cog [MD = 3.31, 95% CI (5.84, 0.78), P = 0.01], SDSD [MD = 2.40, 95% CI (3.53, 1.26), P < 0.0001], MoCA [MD = 4.80, 95% CI (3.74, 5.86), P = 0.04] were better than the control group. No serious adverse reactions related to acupuncture were observed in the intervention group, and the incidence and severity of adverse reactions were lower than those in the control group, with statistical significance [OR = 0.17, 95% CI (0.04, 0.67), P = 0.01]. Conclusion Existing data show that acupuncture therapy has certain advantages in improving cognitive dysfunction and improving self-care ability of patients with Alzheimer's disease. However, due to the small number of RCTS and cases evaluating the efficacy of acupuncture, and the possibility of measurement bias and selectivity bias in included studies, it is still unable to conduct high-intensity demonstration on its effectiveness. Further large-scale, high-quality randomized, double-blind controlled trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy. Systematic Review Registration https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-12-0125/ , identifier: INPLASY2021120125.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".