Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 26;2016(8):CD004131. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004131.pub3

Li 2010a.

Methods RCT
 Method of randomisation: random number table
 Blinding: not stated
Adverse effects: none
 ITT analysis: not stated
 Losses to FU: 4
Participants Country: China
 Number of participants included: 46 (24/22)
 Demographics: aged 47‐79 years, 59% male
 Type of stroke: both ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes
 Diagnosis: CT/MRI
 Severity on entry: not stated
 Time from stroke onset: 1‐36 months
 Setting: outpatient
 Comparability: no significant difference in age or time post onset
Interventions Comparison: acupuncture + WM versus WM
Acupuncture treatment
  • Acupuncture rationale: not stated

  • Needling details

    • Points used: both body and scalp acupoints

    • Numbers of points used: 5 scalp acupoints and 6 body acupoints

    • Depths of insertion: 0.66‐1.5 inches

    • Deqi elicited: yes

    • Needle stimulation: manual and electrical

    • Needle retention time: 30 minutes

    • Needle type: gauge 30#, length 1.97 inches

  • Treatment regimen

    • Number of treatment sessions: 60 sessions

    • Frequency of treatment: 5 sessions/week

    • Total course: 12 weeks

  • Practitioner background: not stated

  • Co‐intervention: WM


Control interventions: WM
Outcomes
  • Improvement of cognitive function (MMSE HDS‐R)

  • Improvement of independence (Barthel Index)

  • Adverse events

  • FU: 12 weeks

Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Randomisation by using random number table
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Information on allocation concealment was not reported
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Information on blinding was not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Information on blinding was not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Information on blinding was not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Treatment: 1 participant could not finish the treatment protocol
Control: 3 participants could not finish the control protocol
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Some patient‐related outcomes were not reported, such as information on quality of life or all‐cause mortality
Other bias Unclear risk No information provided