4.3 Article

GV20-based acupuncture for animal models of acute intracerebral haemorrhage: a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ACUPUNCTURE IN MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 495-502

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1136/acupmed-2014-010546

关键词

ACUPUNCTURE

资金

  1. Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Zhejiang Province, China [2011ZB094]
  2. Project of Wenzhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau in Zhejiang province [Y20110031]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81173395/H2902]
  4. young and middle-aged university discipline leaders of Zhejiang province, China [2013277]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is the most devastating subtype of stroke, but there is currently no evidence-based treatment strategy. Acupuncture is a well-known traditional Chinese therapy for stroke-induced disability, and GV20 is the commonly used acupuncture point. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of GV20-based acupuncture in animal models of acute ICH. Methods Studies of GV20-based acupuncture in animal models of acute ICH were identified from six databases up to July 2013. Study quality for each included article was evaluated according to the CAMARADES 10-item checklist. Outcome measures were neurological deficit scores and brain water content. All the data were analysed using RevMan V.5.1 software. Results Nineteen studies were identified describing procedures involving 1628 animals. The quality score of the studies ranged from 3 to 6, with a mean of 4.6. The global estimate of the effect of GV20-based acupuncture was 0.19 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.25, p<0.001) SDs improvement in outcome compared with controls. In subgroup analyses, size of effect was higher where the outcome was measured as the neurological deficit score than the brain water content or both (p<0.001). Conclusions These findings show the possible efficacy of GV20-based acupuncture in animal models of acute ICH, suggesting it as a candidate therapy for acute ICH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据