NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveThe systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate acupuncture's efficacy and safety in treating dysphagia in Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science Journal Database (VIP), Wan-fang Database, and the China Biomedical Literature Service System (CBM) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of acupuncture alone or in combination with control treatment in improving dysphagia by October 2022. The degree of dysphagia was the primary outcome indicator, with secondary outcomes including serum albumin (ALB) and hemoglobin (Hb) levels, the incidence of pneumonia, and adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted information according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data synthesis was calculated by RevMan (V.5.4.1) software.ResultsThis study included ten randomized controlled trials with 724 patients. Most RCTs have a high or uncertain risk of bias due to the lack of a blinded design. Meta-analysis showed that acupuncture combined with control treatment was superior to control treatment alone in improving Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study (VFSS) scores (MD: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.81; P P P P P P = 0.001).ConclusionAcupuncture could be recommended as an adjunctive treatment for dysphagia in PD. However, due to the high risk of bias in the included studies, more high-quality evidence is needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for dysphagia in PD.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022370221.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.