[Clinical treatment of apoplectic aphemia with multi-needle puncture of scalp-points in combination with visual-listening-speech training].
To observe the therapeutic effect of cluster-needle stimulation of scalp-points combined with rehabilitation training for apoplectic aphemia.
                A total of 56 outpatients were randomized into control (medication, manicol/ beronald, Ca2+ antagonist, citicoline, etc.) group. rehabilitation (Rehab, visual-listening, articulation and speech training) group and acupuncture [Dingqu: 1 cun and 2 cun parallel to the line joining Baihui (GV 20) and Qianding (GV 21) respectively on the bilateral sides. Dingqianqu: 1 cun and 2 cun parallel to the line joining GV21 and Xinghui (GV 22) separately on both sides. etc] combined with rehabilitation (Acup+ Rehab) group. Aphasia Battery of Chinese (ABC) was used to assess the patient's speech ability, i.e., aphasia quocient (AQ); The Chinese functional communication (CFCP) test was used to evaluate the patient's daily life speech communication ability, and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) was also conducted to assess the severity of aphasia.
                After the treatment, the speech ability, oral presentation, listening comprehension, writing ability, AQ index and CFCP were all improved significantly in 3 groups (P < 0.005, 0.01); the total effective rate (85.00%) of Acup+ Rehab group was significantly higher than those of Rehab group (77.78%) and control group (64.71%, P < 0.05, 0.01). The scores of ABC, AQ index, CFCP and BDAE grade in Acup+ Rehab group were significantly higher than those of Rehab and control groups (P < 0.05, 0.01), and those scores of Rehab group were also significantly higher than those of control group (P < 0.05, 0.01).
                The cluster-needle puncture of scalp-points combined with rehabilitation training is an effective therapy for improving apoplectic aphemia.
No evidence was provided to support the use of CES treatment for inertia, a component of apathy. Between-group statistical analyses were not conducted and it was therefore not possible to determine the efficacy of the treatment relative to no treatment or sham treatment. Results regarding the effectiveness of treatment can only be inferred, and this evidence is based on only one trial with a small sample size. More randomised controlled trials evaluating different ways of treating apathy would be valuable. Trials should have larger sample sizes and use rigorous research designs and statistical analyses appropriate for examining between-group differences.