Comparison of multiple acupoints combination in the treatment of post-stroke cognitive impairment: A network...

To evaluate the efficacy of multiple acupoint combinations for the treatment of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) using a network meta-analysis method.

Searches for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various types of acupuncture treatments for post-stroke cognitive dysfunction were conducted, data were extracted from studies selected according to the inclusion criteria, and the RCTs included in the analysis were assessed separately for risk of literature bias. Network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0.

Sixteen RCTs involving 1257 patients were included, which involved 9 groups of acupoint treatment plans. The best treatment plan for improving the mini-mental state examination score of PSCI was a cephalic plexus spur (99.7%). The best treatment option for improving the montreal cognitive assessment score for PSCI was Zishen Yisui acupuncture therapy (ZSYSA) (77.3%). The best option for improving the barthel index score of PSCI was ZSYSA (99.2%). In terms of improving the overall clinical outcomes of PSCI, the best treatment option for improving the overall clinical effectiveness of PSCI is ZSYSA Therapy (92.2%).

The analysis of all results shows that ZSYSA can significantly improve PSCI compared to other acupuncture therapies.

This is the 1st study on the treatment of PSCI with different acupoint combinations based on a network meta-analysis method, which provides a reference for clinical rehabilitation workers; all included studies were randomized controlled trials, which increased the reliability of this study. Limitations; The number of relevant clinical studies retrieved was too small, and all included clinical trials were located in China; therefore, there is a great possibility of publication bias; Most of the included studies did not clearly explain the random distribution mode, follow-up, distribution concealment, or other experimental conditions. Therefore, selection and reporting biases cannot be excluded, suggesting that the quality of the literature is not high; Because of the strict inclusion criteria, the number of studies was limited, and subgroup analysis could not be performed according to the time of onset and the length of the disease course.