SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Traditional Chinese medicine interventions for post-stroke cognitive impairment: an evidence mapping.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) is a major rehabilitation concern. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) shows promise, yet a comprehensive, evidence-based evaluation of existing systematic reviews is lacking. Objective: This study aimed to map and evaluate the evidence on TCM interventions for PSCI, identifying strengths and gaps to inform clinical and research guidance. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase (via Ovid), and Web of Science, as well as Chinese databases including CNKI, Wanfang Database, the Chinese Medicine Database, and VIP Database (from their inception to December 2024) for systematic reviews or meta-analyses of TCM for PSCI. Two reviewers assessed methodological quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The results were synthesized using the population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) framework and visualized as bubble plots in R software. Results: A total of 36 systematic reviews (all from China) were included, covering acupuncture, herbal medicine, moxibustion, auricular stimulation, and TCM exercises. AMSTAR 2 rated 33 as "critically low" and 3 as "low." TCM demonstrated multidimensional benefits: cognitive function (36/36 beneficial), activities of daily living (26/27 beneficial), neurological function (5/5 beneficial), and overall effect (33 beneficial, 1 probably beneficial). Conclusion: TCM interventions may offer multidimensional benefits for PSCI, but the evidence is severely limited by critically low methodological quality. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating. High-quality, prospectively registered systematic reviews and rigorous primary studies are urgently needed. Systematic review registration: CRD420251178410 (PROSPERO).
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.