SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture for post-stroke depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depression is a common comorbid condition in stroke patients, significantly impairing their quality of life. Electroacupuncture (EA) has shown promising effects in treating post-stroke depression (PSD), but integrated evidence remains scarce. Objective: To investigate the efficacy of EA in improving PSD and evaluate its clinical effectiveness and safety through systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We searched eight electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP Data Platform, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and China Biomedical Literature Service System) and manually reviewed reference lists of relevant literature and clinical trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of EA for PSD. Eligible studies were screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relevant data were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results: A total of 22 studies involving 1,640 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that EA improved HAMD (MD = -1.71, 95% CI: -2.79 to -0.63, Conclusion: EA demonstrated superiority over conventional drug therapy in improving HAMD scores, efficacy rates, and safety. However, no significant difference was observed between EA and the control group in improving BI and SDS scores. The pooled results for HAMD scores and SDS showed high heterogeneity, and the study itself exhibited considerable heterogeneity. Furthermore, all included studies were conducted in China, which may introduce regional bias. Future rigorous clinical research is needed to provide high-quality evidence.
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.