Methodology and Reporting Quality Evaluation of Acupuncture for Mild Cognitive Impairment: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

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)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
	Acupuncture vs. donepezil	MQ (2)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
Cao (2013)	Acupuncture combined with CFT/donepezil vs. CFT/donepezil	MMSE (6)	−1^①	−1^③	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
		MoCA (1)	−1^①	−1^③	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
	Electroacupuncture combined with CFT vs. CFT	MBI (1)	−1^①	−1^③	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
	Electroacupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine	MBI (1)	−1^①	−1^③	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
	Electroacupuncture vs. nimodipine	MBI (1)	−1^①	−1^③	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
Hu (2014)	Acupuncture vs. no acupuncture therapy	Effective rate (9)	−1^①	0	0	0	0
	Acupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine	MMSE (6)	−1^①	−1^③	0	0	0
	Acupuncture combined with donepezil vs. donepezil	MMSE (2)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
Mai (2015)	Scalp electroacupuncture vs. nimodipine	Total effective rate (3)	−1^①	0	0	0	−1^⑤
		Apparent efficiency (3)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
		MMSE (3)	−1^①	−1^③	0	0	−1^⑤
	Scalp acupuncture combined with CFT vs. CFT	Total effective rate (2)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
		Apparent efficiency (2)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
		MoCA (2)	−1^①	−1^③	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
Min (2016)	Acupuncture vs. nimodipine	MMSE (3)	−1^①	0	0	0	−1^⑤
		Clinical efficacy rate (3)	−1^①	0	0	0	−1^⑤
	Acupuncture combined with nimodipine vs. nimodipine	MMSE (2)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
Shuai (2016)	Acupuncture combined with Western medicine vs. Western medicine	MMSE (12)	−1^①	−1^③	0	0	0
	Acupuncture combined with drug vs. drug	ADL (6)	−1^①	0	0	0	0
Wang (2017)	Acupuncture vs. ?	Effective rate (16)	−1^①	0	0	0	0
	Acupuncture or acupuncture combined with other therapies vs. medicine	MMSE (7)	−1^①	0	0	0	0
	Empirical acupuncture vs. ordinary acupuncture	MMSE (3)	−1^①	−1^③	0	0	−1^⑤
Li (2018)	Acupuncture vs. no acupuncture therapy	Total effective rate (2)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
		MMSE (9)	−1^①	−1^③	0	0	0
		MoCA (5)	−1^①	−1^③	0	0	−1^②
		ADL (3)	−1^①	−1^③	0	0	−1^⑤
		CDT(2)	−1^①	−1^③	0	−1^④	−1^⑤
Kim (2019)	Electroacupuncture vs. antidementia drugs	MMSE (6)	−1^①	0	0	0	−1^②
		MoCA (2)	−1^①	0	0	−1^④	−1^⑤

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.