SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Effectiveness of scalp acupuncture and comparison with traditional acupuncture for stroke: an overview of systematic reviews and updated evidence.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acupuncture monotherapy for endometriosis-related pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Assessing efficacy and safety of dynamic scalp acupuncture for post-stroke rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStroke recovery is a critical global-health priority; there is growing interest alternative therapies in scalp acupuncture (SA) to overcome the limitations of conventional treatments and improve outcomes. This study provides an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of SA and to compare its therapeutic potential with traditional acupuncture (TA).
methodsA systematic search of 12 databases was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, completed on September 30, 2023, was performed without language restrictions. Selection criteria included adult stroke patients treated with SA, focusing on comparisons of effectiveness and safety in neurological deficits, motor function, disability, and total efficacy rate. Two reviewers independently screened studies and assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, PRISMA-A, and GRADE frameworks. Data were synthesized to compare SA and TA for stroke outcomes, using total searched SA studies and TA data from the Cochrane review, followed by an analysis of high-quality studies to enhance evidence reliability.
resultsAfter overviewing seven systematic reviews, the certainty of evidence supporting the standalone effectiveness and safety of SA remains low owing to methodological shortcomings. However, SA showed a greater effect size in the neurological deficits (-0.96 vs -0.53) in total studies and high-quality studies (-0.92 vs -0.48). Regarding motor function, SA had a higher effect size in total studies (0.94 vs 0.70), but TA outperformed it in high-quality studies (0.39 vs 0.82). Regarding disability outcomes, TA had a slightly larger effect size in total studies (1.27 vs 1.06), whereas SA surpassed it in high-quality studies (1.65 vs. 1.16).
conclusionsThis overview highlights the potential of SA as an effective alternative therapy for stroke recovery, with high-quality studies demonstrating its effectiveness in improving neurological deficits and disability outcomes. This work guides clinicians on integrating SA for stroke recovery and offers insights for improving public health rehabilitation strategies. Despite limitations in the overall evidence owing to methodological shortcomings, the positive results from high-quality studies support SA as a possible approach for stroke recovery, underscoring the need for further rigorous research to strengthen its clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.