Table 17.
Authors (year) | Intervention | Outcomes | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Quality of evidence |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mao (2011) [39] | Acupuncture vs. donepezil | MMSE (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low |
Acupuncture vs. donepezil | MQ (2) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
Cao et al. (2013) [42] | Acupuncture combined with CFT/donepezil vs. CFT/donepezil | MMSE (6) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low |
MoCA (1) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | ||
Electroacupuncture combined with CFT vs. CFT | MBI (1) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
Electroacupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine | MBI (1) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
Electroacupuncture vs. nimodipine | MBI (1) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
Hu et al. (2014) [43] | Acupuncture vs. no acupuncture therapy | Effective rate (9) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate |
Acupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine | MMSE (6) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | |
Acupuncture combined with donepezil vs. donepezil | MMSE (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
Mai and Zheng (2015) [44] | Scalp electroacupuncture vs. nimodipine | Total effective rate (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low |
Apparent efficiency (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | ||
MMSE (3) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Very low | ||
Scalp acupuncture combined with CFT vs. CFT | Total effective rate (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
Apparent efficiency (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | ||
MoCA (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | ||
Deng and Wang (2016) [45] | Acupuncture vs. nimodipine | MMSE (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low |
Clinical efficacy rate (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | ||
Acupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine | MMSE (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
Ting et al. (2016) [46] | Acupuncture combined with Western medicine vs. Western medicine | MMSE (12) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low |
Acupuncture combined with drug vs. drug | ADL (6) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | |
Wang (2017) [47] | Acupuncture vs. ? | Effective rate (16) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate |
Acupuncture or acupuncture combined with other therapies vs. medicine | MMSE (7) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | |
Empirical acupuncture vs. ordinary acupuncture | MMSE (3) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Very low | |
Li et al. 2018 [48] | Acupuncture vs. no acupuncture therapy | Total effective rate (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low |
MMSE (9) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | ||
MoCA (5) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | −1② | Very low | ||
ADL (3) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Very low | ||
CDT(2) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | ||
Kim et al. 2019 [49] | Electroacupuncture vs. antidementia drugs | MMSE (6) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1② | Low |
MoCA (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low |
① = the design of the experiment with a large bias in random, distributive hiding, or blind. ② = funnel graph asymmetry. ③ = the confidence interval overlaps less, the heterogeneity test P is very small, and I2 is larger. ④ = the sample size is small, and the confidence interval is wide. ⑤ = fewer studies are included, and there may be greater publication bias. ?The original text does not clearly mention what the control group is.