Comparison 1. Acupuncture versus control.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Death or dependency at end of follow‐up	11	1582	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.61 [0.46, 0.79]
1.1 Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	4	262	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.71 [0.43, 1.18]
1.2 Acupuncture vs open control	8	1320	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.55 [0.37, 0.80]
2 Death or dependency at end of follow‐up (> 3 months)	8	1436	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.53, 0.85]
2.1 Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	3	244	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.40, 1.12]
2.2 Acupuncture vs open control	6	1192	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.62 [0.42, 0.93]
3 Death or institutional care at end of follow‐up	5	1120	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.54, 1.12]
3.1 Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	2	145	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.47 [0.23, 0.96]
3.2 Acupuncture vs open control	4	975	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.61, 1.42]
4 Change in global neurological deficit score at end of treatment period	12	1086	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.84 [0.36, 1.32]
4.1 Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	1	53	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.01 [‐0.55, 0.57]
4.2 Acupuncture vs open control	12	1033	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.41, 1.41]
5 Motor function at end of acupuncture treatment period	11	895	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.45, 1.71]
5.1 Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	3	202	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐0.38, 0.17]
5.2 Acupuncture vs open control	8	693	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.52 [0.70, 2.34]
6 Motor function at end of follow‐up (> 3 months)	3	186	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.08 [‐0.21, 0.37]
6.1 Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	2	144	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.02 [‐0.35, 0.31]
6.2 Acupuncture vs open control	1	42	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.44 [‐0.18, 1.05]
7 Death within first 2 weeks	18	1612	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.33, 2.55]
7.1 Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	5	378	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.20 [0.27, 5.26]
7.2 Acupuncture vs open control	14	1234	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.71 [0.17, 2.96]
8 Death during whole follow‐up period	22	2865	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.74, 1.58]
8.1 Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	6	668	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.47, 1.72]
8.2 Acupuncture vs open control	17	2197	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.19 [0.74, 1.91]
9 Adverse events during treatment period	5	576	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.58 [0.29, 1.16]