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

Zheng 2014.

Methods RCT
 Method of randomisation: randomisation by using random number table
 Blinding: not stated
Adverse effects: not stated
 ITT analysis: not stated
 Losses to FU: none
Participants Country: China
 Number of participants included: 60 (30/30)
 Demographics: aged 51‐79 years, 60% male
 Type of stroke: both ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes
 Diagnosis: WHO definition
 Severity on entry: not stated
 Time from stroke onset: 1‐6 months
 Setting: inpatient
 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: 2 scalp acupoints and 5 body acupoints

    • Depths of insertion: 0.39‐1.97 inches

    • Deqi elicited: yes

    • Needle stimulation: manual

    • Needle retention time: 30 minutes

    • Needle type: hua tuo brand, length 1.57 inches

  • Treatment regimen

    • Number of treatment sessions: 48 sessions

    • Frequency of treatment: 6 sessions/week

    • Total course: 8 weeks

  • Practitioner background: not stated

  • Co‐intervention: WM


Control interventions: WM
Outcomes
  • Improvement of cognitive function (MMSE, MoCA)

  • Improvement of independence (Barthel Index)

  • FU: 8 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 Quote: "No participants lost to follow‐up"
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Free of selective reporting bias was assessed as 'unclear' due to some clinically important outcomes unstated, such as quality of life, mortality and adverse events
Other bias Unclear risk No information provided