Efficacy of acupuncture combined with mirror therapy in the treatment of post-stroke limb movement disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Weihao Ke, Hongxin Cheng, Xiaoxuan Ren and 3 others
PMID 39575345WHAT IT FOUND
Acupuncture added to mirror therapy improved upper and lower limb motor scores over either treatment alone or conventional rehab, across 42 trials of 3,340 stroke patients.
Spasticity scores did not clearly improve.
Key findings
01Combined acupuncture and mirror therapy produced higher FMA-T (MD 6.84), FMA-UE (MD 6.77), and FMA-L (MD 3.37) scores than control groups receiving a single therapy or conventional rehabilitation.
02MBI scores were higher in the combined group (MD 10.82), but the MAS confidence interval in the results section runs from −0.66 to 0.03, which includes zero, even though the discussion describes the spasticity result as significant.
03Treatment of at least 6 weeks produced significantly better lower limb scores than 4 weeks or less (interaction P = 0.02), but no such duration difference appeared for upper limb scores (interaction P = 0.63).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
All outcome measures were subjective scales (FMA, MBI, MAS); the authors note that assessors varied in experience and that no objective measures (EMG, gait analysis, fMRI) were available. Heterogeneity was high for FMA-UE (I² = 87%), MBI (I² = 94%), and MAS (I² = 97%), meaning the pooled estimates are less reliable for those outcomes. Egger's test indicated publication bias for FMA-UE and FMA-L, though the authors report that cut-and-patch adjustment did not materially change the results. Acupuncture points and techniques varied widely across the 42 trials, making it hard to identify which specific protocol drove the effect. Most trials enrolled patients in the subacute phase; few included acute or chronic stroke patients. The participant count is stated as 3,340 in the results section but 3,440 in the discussion. The MAS confidence interval in the results section (−0.66 to 0.03) includes zero, yet the discussion describes the result as significant.
Declared interests
Funded by the Chongqing Natural Science Foundation (CSTB2024NSCQ-MSX0504) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC No. 81674066). No industry sponsorship or author conflicts of interest are declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the spasticity result as a confirmed improvement. The results section gives a confidence interval from −0.66 to 0.03, which includes zero, even though the discussion calls it significant. Also, the control groups received acupuncture alone, mirror therapy alone, or conventional rehabilitation, so this is a comparison against a single modality or standard care, not against no treatment at all.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →