MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401555829 · doi:10.1111/jgs.19125

Oral Chinese herbal medicine combined with donepezil for mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2024· review· en· W4401555829 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lingling Liu, Claire Shuiqing Zhang, Anthony Lin Zhang, Yefeng Cai, Charlie Changli Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicinal Plants and Neuroprotection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhou University of Chinese MedicineRMIT University
KeywordsMedicineDonepezilMeta-analysisCognitive impairmentMEDLINECognitionTraditional medicineIntensive care medicineDementiaInternal medicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background This study aims to evaluate the add‐on effects of oral Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), when used in addition to donepezil compared to donepezil alone. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing these treatments across all types of MCI were identified from nine databases and three registers until August 2023. Outcome measures were Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and adverse events (AEs). Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the GRADE method. Results Involving 1611 participants across 20 studies, meta‐analysis results indicate that oral CHM combined with donepezil significantly improved cognitive function in MCI patients compared to donepezil alone, as evidenced by MMSE (1.88 [1.52, 2.24], I 2 = 41%, 12 studies, 993 participants) and MoCA (MD: 2.01 [1.57, 2.44], I 2 = 52%, 11 studies, 854 participants). Eleven studies reported details of AEs, identifying gastrointestinal symptoms and insomnia as the most common symptoms. No significant difference in AEs frequency was found between the groups (RR: 0.91 [0.59, 1.39], I 2 = 4%, 11 studies, 808 participants). All 20 studies were evaluated as having “some concerns” regarding the overall risk of bias. The certainty of evidence for MMSE was “moderate” and “low” for MoCA. From frequently utilized herbs, two classical CHM formulae were identified: Kai xin san and Si wu decoction. The observed treatment effects of commonly used herbs may be exerted through multiple pharmacological mechanisms, including anti‐inflammatory, anti‐oxidative stress, anti‐apoptotic actions, promotion of neuronal survival and modulation of the cholinergic system. Conclusions The concurrent use of oral CHM and donepezil appears to be more effective than donepezil alone in improving the cognitive function of MCI, without leading to an increase in AEs. While recognizing concerns of overall methodological quality, this combined therapy should be considered as an alternative option for clinical practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicMedicinal Plants and NeuroprotectionFrench-language works237,207