MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417279578 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1663452

Acupuncture combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of post-stroke cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

2025· article· en· W4417279578 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaomeng Zhang, Jie Wang, Wan Long Pan, Jin Sun, Mingyuan He, Qinyun Wang, Peiyang Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAnhui University
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationCognitionAcupunctureQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialBrain stimulationCognitive trainingActivities of daily living

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of acupuncture combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) through meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA), moreover to provide an evidence-based basis for the treatment of PSCI in clinical practice. Methods The study conducted a comprehensive search of eight major domestic and international databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP and China Biology Medicine (CBM). Four English and four Chinese databases of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture combined with rTMS for the treatment of PSCI from inception until July 2025. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were conducted based on the Cochrane systematic review method by using RevMan5.4 and Stata/MP 18.0, and trial sequential analyses were performed by TSA 0.9. Results Sixteen RCTs involving 1,058 patients were included, including 532 patients in the experimental group and 526 patients in the control group. Meta-analysis results showed that the experimental group had a higher clinical effectiveness rate in treating patients with PSCI compared to the control group [RR = 1.29, 95% CI (1.08, 1.55), p = 0.005]. The experimental group significantly improved scores on several scales: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) [MD = 2.95, 95% CI (2.37, 3.53), p < 0.00001], Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [MD = 2.89, 95% CI (2.13, 3.64), p < 0.00001], LOTCA [MD = 13.61, 95% CI (6.57, 20.65), p = 0.0002], Modified Barthel Index (MBI) [MD = 10.86, 95% CI (7.79, 13.94), p < 0.00001], Activity of Daily Life (ADL) [MD = 15.33, 95% CI (10.06, 20.61), p < 0.00001]. Also it was found to reduced the latency of P300 in the experimental group [MD = −18.18, 95% CI (−25.76, −10.61), p < 0.00001] and prolonged the amplitude of P300 [MD = 1.55, 95%CI (0.71, 2.39), p = 0.0003]. In addition, it could increase the Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) level in the blood of the patients [MD = 0.93, 95%CI (0.52, 1.35), p < 0.0001], and decrease the Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE) levels [SMD = −1.26, 95% CI (−1.59, −0.93), p < 0.00001]. There are two studies reported the adverse events. The TSA showed that the cumulative Z value of the meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness rate, MoCA, and MMSE scales crossed the traditional and TSA boundaries, proving reliable conclusions. Conclusion Acupuncture combined with rTMS can improve cognitive function, regulate daily living ability, and regulate neurotransmitter levels in patients with PSCI, which is worthy recommended in the clinic. However, due to limitations in sample size, inclusion quality and incomplete reporting, it is worth noting that more rigorously designed and high-quality studies are needed to further validate these conclusions.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.046
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207