ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Acupuncture for cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis protocol.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The global prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has exceeded 589 million, with the proportion of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with comorbid cognitive impairment (CI) as high as 49.1%, which has a serious impact on disease management and quality of life. While acupuncture has been shown to improve cerebral glucose metabolism and synaptic plasticity, existing clinical trials are plagued by critical limitations: small sample sizes (often <100 participants) fail to detect subtle treatment effects, methodological heterogeneity in acupuncture protocols (e.g., varying acupoint selections, stimulation intensities, and treatment durations) hinders evidence synthesis, and insufficient blinding (e.g., sham acupuncture controls with low plausibility) introduces performance bias. These limitations have constrained the generalizability of findings and created a significant evidence gap in defining acupuncture's role in diabetic cognitive impairment (DCI). The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for DCI through a systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), addressing these methodological flaws via rigorous evidence synthesis. Methods and analysis: Following PRISMA-NMA and STRICTA-2010 guidelines, we will systematically search 10 databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, etc.) from inception to 30 June 2025 and gray literature (January 1, 1995, to June 30, 2025) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with pharmacotherapy, sham acupuncture, or standard care. Inclusion criteria: adults (≥18 years) with T2DM and CI diagnosed via validated scales such as Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Primary outcomes include cognitive function scores; secondary outcomes assess adverse events (CTCAE v5.0). The risk of bias will be evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and GRADE. Bayesian NMA will synthesize direct and indirect evidence to simultaneously assess the relative efficacy and safety of acupuncture. Expected findings and conclusion: The study will clarify the relative efficacy and safety of acupuncture in improving DCI and provide evidence-based treatment options for clinical use. The results of Bayesian analyses may support acupuncture as a low-cost, low-risk adjunctive therapy, especially for patients intolerant of conventional medications. The results of the study will fill the current evidence gap and promote the standardized use of acupuncture in the management of DCI. Systematic review registration: CRD42021275161.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.