MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410186774 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098535

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in conjunction with scalp acupuncture in treating poststroke cognitive impairment: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4410186774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haihua Xie, Ruhan Zhang, Sihui Cao, Jia‐Qian Jiang, Bo Huang, Mi Liu, Liang Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineFunnel plotPublication biasMeta-analysisCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewAcupunctureTranscranial magnetic stimulationProtocol (science)MEDLINEPsychological interventionPsychiatryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 70% of patients with stroke experience varying degrees of cognitive impairment, which imposes a substantial direct and indirect socioeconomic burden. Previous studies have shown that scalp acupuncture (SA) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in combination with other therapies is effective for poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). Limited by interstudy heterogeneity and the limited number of included studies, there is insufficient evidence of the efficacy of rTMS in combination with SA in treating PSCI. Therefore, this protocol aims to investigate the effectiveness of rTMS in conjunction with SA for patients with PSCI through a comprehensive meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will undertake a comprehensive search across nine distinct databases (Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database, China Biology Medicine and SCOPUS). The primary outcome will encompass the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Mini-Mental State Examination. The secondary outcomes are the modified Barthel Index, the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test and the Digit Span Test. The bias risk assessment tool from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions will be used to evaluate bias risk, and the GRADE will be applied to gauge the quality of evidence. Furthermore, we plan to perform an analysis of subgroups to investigate the heterogeneity, employ the leave-one-out approach for sensitivity evaluation and use funnel plots and Egger's test to determine publication bias, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required in systematic review and meta-analysis. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024571762.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.027
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.004

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→