Scalp acupuncture for stroke: A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Issue 44 (4th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Park, Sun-Young; Kim, Hyun-Tae; Heo, In; Hwang, Man-Suk; Hwang, Eui-Hyoung; Shin, Byung-Cheul
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 101:Issue 44(2022)
• Page Start: e31472
• Publication Date: 2022-11-04
• Subjects: assessment of multiple systematic reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tool -- overview -- randomized controlled trial -- scalp acupuncture -- stroke -- systematic reviews; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031472
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Scalp acupuncture (SA) is a new acupuncture method that connects head acupoints and aculines, and many systematic reviews (SRs) have been published on its use against neuropsychiatric diseases. However, no overview of SRs on the effectiveness of SA in stroke recovery has been conducted. Therefore, our overview aims to evaluate the methodological bias and reliability of the conclusions of SRs regarding SA for stroke recovery and help clinical decision-makers translate this research into clinical policy and practice. Methods: We will consider SRs and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effects of SA on stroke recovery. Two reviewers will identify relevant studies, extract data information, and assess the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 tool. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses report checklist will also be included in the study to assess the quality of the reports. We will use evaluations of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation of the authors of the included SRs. The Risk of Bias in Systematic Review tool will be used to assess the risk of bias of SRs. The screening of SRs, eligibility evaluation, data extraction, methodological quality, and quality of evidence will be conducted by independent reviewers in pairs. The outcomes of interest include the Modified Edinburgh–Scandinavian Stroke Scale, Ability of Daily Living, Functional Independence Measure, Barthel index, Fugl–Meyer assessment, clinical effective rate, and adverse events. Data will be extracted using predefined forms designed to summarize the important characteristics of each review. The evidence will be a descriptive synthesis of the type and content of the intervention and the results reported. Results: The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusions: We expect to organize evidence from multiple SRs on the effectiveness of SA for stroke recovery and synthesize the findings in an accessible and useful documentation.