Table 18.
Quality of evidence in included systematic reviews with GRADE (assessor 1).
| Author (year) | Intervention | Outcomes | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mao (2011) | Acupuncture vs. donepezil | MMSE (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ |
| Acupuncture vs. donepezil | MQ (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | |
| Cao (2013) | Acupuncture combined with CFT/donepezil vs. CFT/donepezil | MMSE (6) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ |
| MoCA (1) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | ||
| Electroacupuncture combined with CFT vs. CFT | MBI (1) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | |
| Electroacupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine | MBI (1) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | |
| Electroacupuncture vs. nimodipine | MBI (1) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | |
| Hu (2014) | Acupuncture vs. no acupuncture therapy | Effective rate (9) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Acupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine | MMSE (6) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Acupuncture combined with donepezil vs. donepezil | MMSE (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | |
| Mai (2015) | Scalp electroacupuncture vs. nimodipine | Total effective rate (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ |
| Apparent efficiency (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | ||
| MMSE (3) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | ||
| Scalp acupuncture combined with CFT vs. CFT | Total effective rate (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | |
| Apparent efficiency (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | ||
| MoCA (2) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | ||
| Min (2016) | Acupuncture vs. nimodipine | MMSE (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ |
| Clinical efficacy rate (3) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | ||
| Acupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine | MMSE (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | |
| Shuai (2016) | Acupuncture combined with Western medicine vs. Western medicine | MMSE (12) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Acupuncture combined with drug vs. drug | ADL (6) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Wang (2017) | Acupuncture vs. ? | Effective rate (16) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Acupuncture or acupuncture combined with other therapies vs. medicine | MMSE (7) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Empirical acupuncture vs. ordinary acupuncture | MMSE (3) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | |
| Li (2018) | Acupuncture vs. no acupuncture therapy | Total effective rate (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ |
| MMSE (9) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| MoCA (5) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | −1② | ||
| ADL (3) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | ||
| CDT(2) | −1① | −1③ | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | ||
| Kim (2019) | Electroacupuncture vs. antidementia drugs | MMSE (6) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1② |
| MoCA (2) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ |
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.