1. Excluded studies: further trial information.
| Study name | Participants and Methods | Interventions | Outcomes | Reported results |
| Cao 2007 | 120 participants with VD were randomly allocated by a computer to equal size groups | Acupuncture (N=60) versus a control group treated with huperzine A tablets (N=60) | MMSE, ADL | MMSE (treatment effect = 3.90, 95% CI 2.25 to 5.55, P<0.00001); ADL (treatment effect = ‐4.40, 95% CI ‐6.99 to ‐1.81, P = 0.0009) |
| Chen 2000 | 46 participants with VD were randomly allocated by a computer | Electroacupuncture (N=23) versus a control group treated with nimodipine (N=23) | HDS | A reported improvement from baseline on the HDS. Change from baseline scores: treatment effect = 3.76, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.65, P=0.04 |
| Chu 2008 | 65 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Scalp acupuncture plus duxil (N=33) versus a control group treated with duxil (N=32) | MMSE, HDS, ADL | MMSE (treatment effect =2.14 95% CI 0.19 to 4.09, P = 0.03); HDS (treatment effect =1.83 95% CI ‐0.25 to 3.91, P = 0.09); ADL (treatment effect = ‐7.18, 95% CI ‐12.75 to ‐1.61, P = 0.01) |
| Gao 2001 | 63 participants with VD were pseudo‐randomized using entry sequence | Acupuncture (N=31) versus a control using piracetam | HDS, SOD, LPO | HDS (treatment effect = 3.22, 95% CI 0.17 to 6.27, P = 0.04); SOD (treatment effect = 5.01, 95% CI 2.01 to 8.01, p = 0.001); LPO (treatment effect = ‐0.70, 95% CI ‐1.5 to 0.10, P = 0.09) |
| Huang 2007 | 50 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Routine acupuncture plus Baihui (N=10) versus routine acupuncture plus Shuigou (N=10) versus routine acupuncture plus Shenmen (N=10) versus routine acupuncture plus Baihui plus Shuigou plus Shuigou (N=10) versus routine acupuncture (N=10) Note: Labelled from 1 to 4 are the results from the previous four groups compared with routine acupuncture respectively. |
MMSE, ADL, FAQ | MMSE1(treatment effect =‐5.48 95% CI ‐9.36 to ‐1.60, P=0.006); ADL1(treatment effect =0.05 95% CI ‐4.19 to 4.29, P=0.98); FAQ1(treatment effect =3.28 95% CI ‐1.51 to 8.07, P=0.18); MMSE2(treatment effect =‐1.51 95% CI ‐4.83 to 1.81, P=0.37); ADL2(treatment effect =‐0.18 95% CI ‐3.84 to 3.48, P=0.92); FAQ2(treatment effect =0.32 95% CI ‐4.48 to 5.12, P=0.90); MMSE3(treatment effect =‐1.99 95% CI ‐6.15 to 2.17, P=0.35); ADL3(treatment effect =0.40 95% CI ‐3.32 to 4.12, P=0.83); FAQ3(treatment effect =2.66 95% CI ‐1.94 to 7.26, P=0.26); MMSE4(treatment effect =‐2.28 95% CI ‐5.41 to 0.85, P=0.15); ADL4(treatment effect =0.03 95% CI ‐3.70 to 3.76, P=0.99); FAQ4(treatment effect =2.05 95% CI‐3.12 to 7.22, P=0.44) |
| Jiang 1998 | 66 participants with VD were randomly allocated by a computer | Electroacupuncture (N=33) versus a control using hydergine (N=33) | HDS, FAQ, LPO, SOD, NO | HDS (treatment effect = 5.10, 95% CI 1.47 to 8.73, P = 0.006); FAQ (treatment effect = ‐2.12, 95% CI ‐5.11 to 0.87, P = 0.16); LPO (treatment effect = ‐1.19, 95% CI ‐2.04 to ‐0.34, P = 0.006); SOD (treatment effect = 9.02, 95% CI 1.20 to 16.84, p = 0.02); NO (treatment effect = ‐0.23, 95% CI ‐0.36 to ‐0.10, P = 0.0004) |
| Lai 1997 | 60 participants with VD were randomly allocated by a computer | Electroacupuncture (N=30) versus a control using aniracetam (N=30) | HDS | A reported improvement from baseline on the HDS. Change from baseline scores: treatment effect = 3.76, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.65, P=0.04 |
| Lai 1998 | 46 participants with VD were pseudo‐randomized using entry sequence | Electroacupuncture (N=23) versus a control using acupuncture (N=23) | HDS, FAQ, SOD, LPO, NO | HDS (treatment effect = 5.82, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.49, P = 0.01); FAQ (treatment effect = ‐2.13, 95% CI ‐5.62 to 1.36, P = 0.23); SOD (treatment effect = 189.20, 95% CI 26.30 to 352.10, P = 0.02); LPO (treatment effect = ‐1.27, 95% CI ‐2.24 to ‐0.30, P = 0.01); NO (treatment effect = ‐0.20, 95% CI ‐0.36 to ‐0.04, P = 0.01) |
| Li 2001a | 68 participants with VD were randomly allocated using block randomization | Electroacupuncture (N=34) versus a control using dihydroergotoxine (DHET) (N=34) | HDS, FAQ, ADL | HDS (treatment effect = 6.73, 95% CI 3.74 to 9.72, P < 0.001); FAQ (treatment effect = ‐0.55, 95% CI ‐3.18 to 2.08, P = 0.68); ADL (treatment effect = 5.45, 95% CI ‐7.00 to 17.90, P = 0.39) |
| Li 2008 | 78 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Tongue acupuncture plus duxil (N=40) versus a control using duxil (N=38) | HDS, MMSE | HDS (treatment effect = 1.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.74, P = 0.03); MMSE (treatment effect = 0.57, 95% CI ‐1.62 to 2.76, P = 0.61) |
| Liu 1997 | 100 participants with VD were pseudo‐randomized using entry sequence | Acupuncture at designated acupoints (N=50) versus control using acupuncture at designated different acupoints (N=50) | HDS, FAQ | HDS (treatment effect = 2.56, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.99, P = 0.04); FAQ (treatment effect = ‐2.24, 95% CI ‐4.42 to 0.06, P = 0.04) |
| Liu 2004 | 76 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Acupuncture (N=38) versus a control using low molecular weight dextran (N=38) | HDS, FAQ | HDS (treatment effect = 5.26, 95% CI 3.43 to 7.09, P < 0.00001); FAQ (treatment effect = ‐7.05, 95% CI ‐10.55 to ‐3.55, P < 0.0001) |
| Liu 2007 | 120 participants with VD were randomised using a random number table but allocation concealment was not applied | Acupuncture (N=60) versus a control using duxil (N=60) | HDS, MMSE, FAQ, NFD | HDS (treatment effect = 1.04, 95% CI ‐0.38 to 2.46, P = 0.15); MMSE (treatment effect = 0.68, 95% CI ‐1.25 to 2.61, P = 0.49); FAQ (treatment effect = ‐1.03, 95% CI ‐2.79 to 0.73, P = 0.25); NFD (treatment effect = ‐1.78, 95% CI ‐4.28 to 0.72, P = 0.16) |
| Liu 2008 | 108 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Scalp acupuncture (N=47) The reason of 7 dropout in this group is noncompliance with acupuncture. A control using nimodipine (N=45) The reason of 9 dropout in this group is noncompliance with medicine. |
MMSE, BDS, HDS, ADL | MMSE (treatment effect = ‐0.29, 95% CI ‐1.96 to 1.38, P = 0.73); BDS (treatment effect = ‐0.09, 95% CI ‐1.94 to 1.76, P = 0.92); HDS (treatment effect = ‐0.11, 95% CI ‐2.48 to 2.26, p = 0.93); ADL (treatment effect = ‐1.23, 95% CI ‐10.24 to 7.78, P = 0.79) |
| Liu 2008a | 60 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Acupuncture (N=30) versus a control using duxil (N=30) | HDS, MMSE, FAQ | HDS (treatment effect = 1.04, 95% CI ‐0.97 to 3.05, p = 0.31); MMSE (treatment effect = 0.68, 95% CI ‐2.05 to 3.41, p = 0.63); FAQ (treatment effect = ‐1.03, 95% CI ‐3.51 to 1.45, p = 0.42) |
| Lun 2003 | 89 participants with VD were randomized using the drawing of lots but allocation concealment was not applied | Scalp acupuncture using electricity plus a Chinese herbal medicine (N=57) versus a control using the same Chinese herbal medicine only (N=32) | HDS | HDS (treatment effect =2.04, 95% CI ‐0.91 to 4.99, P = 0.17) |
| Niu 2007 | 60 participants with VD were randomized using a random number table but allocation concealment was not applied | Scalp acupuncture (N=30) versus a control using duxil (N=30) | HDS, NFD | HDS (treatment effect =0.89 95% CI ‐1.12 to 2.90, P = 0.38); NFD (treatment effect =‐1.78 95% CI ‐5.32 to 1.76, P = 0.32) |
| Peng 2008 | 122 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Acupuncture (N=40) versus acupuncture plus XingNaoJing drip (N=34) versus a control using XingnNaoJing drip(N=48) Note: Labelled 1 and 2 are the results from the previous two groups compared with the last group respectively. |
MMSE, ADL | MMSE1 (treatment effect = 1.92, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.79, P < 0.0001); ADL1 (treatment effect = 20.68, 95% CI 14.96 to 26.40, P < 0.00001); MMSE2 (treatment effect = 0.53, 95% CI ‐0.58 to 1.64, P = 0.35); ADL2 (treatment effect = 27.44, 95% CI 20.83 to 34.05, P < 0.00001) |
| Wang 2007 | 64 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Electroacupuncture (N=32) versus a control using abu nidal plus hydergine (N=32) | ADL, MMSE | ADL (treatment effect = 3.75, 95% CI ‐0.10 to 7.60, P = 0.06); MMSE(treatment effect = 1.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.47, P = 0.02) |
| Wang 2007a | 60 participants with VD were randomly allocated by a random number table | Scalpa cupuncture (N=30) versus a control using hydergine (N=30) | MMSE, ADL | MMSE (treatment effect = 5.00, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.81, P < 0.00001); ADL (treatment effect = ‐4.43, 95% CI ‐11.28 to 2.42, P = 0.20) |
| Wang 2007b | 60 participants with VD were pseudo‐randomized using entry sequence | Acupuncture plus cerebrolysin via intravenous drip (N=30) versus a control using cerebrolysin via intravenous drip (N=30) | HDS, ADL | HDS (treatment effect = 2.24, 95% CI ‐0.12 to 4.60, P = 0.06); ADL (treatment effect = 10.72, 95% CI 3.82 to 17.62, P = 0.002) |
| Wang 2007c | 60 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Acupuncture plus Xinkang capsule (N=30) versus Xinkang capsule (N=30) | MMSE, ADL | MMSE (treatment effect = 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.42, P < 0.0001); ADL (treatment effect = ‐0.12, 95% CI ‐5.17 to 4.93, P = 0.96) |
| Wang 2008 | 60 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Acupuncture (N=30) versus a control using huperzine A tablets (N=30) | HDS, ADL, MMSE | HDS (treatment effect = 3.84, 95% CI 1.94 to 5.74, P < 0.0001); ADL (treatment effect = 10.58, 95% CI 7.97 to 13.19, P < 0.00001); MMSE (treatment effect = 5.31, 95% CI 2.33 to 8.29, P = 0.0005) |
| Yu 2006 | 60 participants with VD were randomly allocated by a computer | Special acupuncture plus routine acupuncture (N=30) versus routine acupuncture (N=30) | MMSE, HDS, ADL | MMSE (treatment effect = 1.56, 95% CI ‐2.15 to 5.27, P = 0.41); HDS (treatment effect = 2.25, 95% CI ‐0.59 to 5.09, P = 0.12 ); ADL (treatment effect = ‐1.50, 95% CI 9.80 to 6.80, P = 0.72) |
| Yu 2007 | 63 participants with VD were randomly allocated using block randomization | Acupuncture (N=32) The reason for 2 dropouts in this group is non‐compliance with acupuncture. A control using hydergine (N=30) The reason for 1 dropout in this group is non‐compliance with medicine. |
MMSE, BBS | MMSE (treatment effect = 2.20, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.65, P = 0.003); BBS (treatment effect = ‐1.67, 95% CI ‐2.27 to ‐0.57, P = 0.003) |
| Zhang 2008 | 270 participants with VD were randomly allocated by a computer | 29 are eliminated and 241 are analysed. Electroacupuncture (N=78) versus electroacupuncture plus nimodipine (N=82) versus a control using nimodipine (N=81) 13 dropout without reason or group. Note: Labelled 1 and 2 are the results from the previous two groups compared with the last group respectively. |
MMSE | MMSE1(treatment effect =3.41 95% CI 1.84 to 4.98, P < 0.0001); MMSE2(treatment effect =3.85 95% CI 2.26 to 5.44, P < 0.00001) |
| Zhao 2000 | 68 participants with VD were randomly allocated using a random number table | Electroacupuncture (N=36) versus a control using hydergine (N=32) | MMSE, BDS | MMSE (treatment effect = 2.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.71, P = 0.04); BDS (treatment effect =‐3.08, 95% CI ‐5.96 to ‐0.20, P = 0.04) |
| Zhou 2008 | 60 participants with VD were randomly allocated using block randomization | Acupuncture (N=30) versus a control using aniracetam (N=30) | HDS, FAQ, ADL | HDS (treatment effect = 2.10, 95% CI ‐0.15 to 4.35, P = 0.07); FAQ (treatment effect =0.16, 95% CI ‐2.31 to 2.63, P = 0.90); ADL (treatment effect =5.45, 95% CI ‐7.80 to 18.70, P = 0.42) |
VD (vascular dementia), HDS (Hasegawa's Dementia Score), SOD (blood superoxide dismutase), LPO (lipid peroxides), MMSE (Mini Mental State Examination), ADL (Activities of Daily Living), FAQ (Functional Activity Questionnaire); NO (nitric oxide); GSH‐PX (glutathione peroxidase); BDS (Blessed‐Dementia‐Scale)