Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize evidence on the therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on core symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS). Specifically, findings from studies deploying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocols were summarized in this review.MethodsWe systematically searched articles published in four databases, until 31 May 2021, which compared the effects of active tDCS or rTMS with sham intervention in MS patients. We used a random-effects model for this meta-analysis. Meta-regression and subgroup meta-analysis were used to examine the effects of stimulation dose and different stimulation protocols, respectively.ResultsTwenty-five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review, consisting of 19 tDCS and 6 rTMS studies. tDCS led to a significant and immediate reduction of fatigue with a large effect size (Hedges's g = -0.870, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = [-1.225 to -0.458], number needed to treat (NNT) = 2). Particularly, a subgroup analysis showed that applying tDCS over the left DLPFC and bilateral S1 led to fatigue reductions compared to sham stimulation. Furthermore, tDCS had favorable effects on fatigue in MS patients with low physical disability but not those with high physical disability, and additionally improved cognitive function. Finally, whereas rTMS was observed to reduce muscle spasticity, these NIBS protocols showed no further effect on MS-associated pain and mood symptoms.ConclusiontDCS in MS alleviates fatigue and improves cognitive function whereas rTMS reduces muscle spasticity. More high-quality studies are needed to substantiate the therapeutic effects of different NIBS protocols in MS.
Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), as a neurological intervention for degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) based on preregistration (PROSPERO: CRD42023379192).ObjectiveWe aimed to explore clinical outcomes and examine the parameters associated with NIBS efficacy in DCA patients.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, CHINAL, and PEDro databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction, quality assessment, and heterogeneity analyses were conducted; the Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence and a meta-analysis was performed.ResultsSeventeen RCTs that included 661 patients on the scale for assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and 606 patients on the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) were included. These RCTs showed a serious risk of bias (RoB) and low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. NIBS significantly reduced SARA (MD = -2.49, [95% confidence interval: -3.34, -1.64]) and ICARS (-5.27 [-7.06, -3.47]); the subgroup analysis showed significant effects: rTMS and tES reduced both outcomes. However, there were no significant differences in the effects of rTMS and tES. Additional subgroup analysis indicated the impact of rTMS frequency and the total number of tES sessions on ataxia.ConclusionNon-invasive brain stimulation may reduce ataxia in DCA patients, but the estimated effect size may change in future studies because the RoB was serious and the certainty of evidence was low, and the heterogeneity was high. To establish evidence for selecting NIBS methods and parameters, continued high-quality RCTs are required.
Project description:Essential tremor (ET) is the most common age-related disease leading to abnormal tremulous behaviors in the upper and lower extremities. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may be an effective ET therapy by modulating the oscillating network of the brain. The current systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of NIBS interventions on tremor symptoms in ET patients. Our comprehensive search identified eight studies that used 1 Hz of rTMS, cTBS, or ctDCS protocols. Twenty total comparisons from the eight qualified studies were statistically synthesized, and the meta-analytic findings revealed that NIBS techniques reduced tremulous behaviors in individuals with ET. Moreover, the four moderator variable analyses demonstrated that the positive therapeutic effects of NIBS appeared across the following subgroups: (a) tremor assessment (clinical test vs. quantitative tremor assessment), (b) stimulation site (cerebellum vs. motor cortex), (c) session number (single session vs. multiple sessions), and (d) sustained positive treatment effect (posttest vs. retention test). This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence that support positive treatment effects of NIBS techniques on ET motor therapy.
Project description:Approximately 7-9% of people develop posttraumatic stress disorder in their lifetime, but standard pharmacological treatment or psychotherapy shows a considerable individual variation in their effectiveness. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) hold promise for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the existing evidence on the therapeutic effects of these brain stimulation treatments on posttraumatic core symptoms. We systematically retrieved articles published between 1st January 2000 and 1st January 2020 comparing the effects of active with sham stimulation or no intervention in posttraumatic patients from eight databases. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Meta-regression and subgroup meta-analysis was performed to investigate the influence of stimulation dose and different stimulation protocols, respectively. 20 studies were included in this review, where of 11 randomized controlled trials were subjected to quantitative analysis. Active stimulation demonstrated significant reductions of core posttraumatic symptoms with a large effect size (Hedge's g = -0.975). Subgroup analysis showed that both excitatory and inhibitory rTMS of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex led to symptom reductions with a large (Hedges' g = -1.161, 95% CI, -1.823 to -0.499; p = 0.015) and medium effect size (Hedges' g = -0.680, 95% CI: -0.139 to -0.322; p ≤ 0.001) respectively. Results further indicated significant durability of symptom-reducing effects of treatments during a two to four weeks period post stimulation (Hedges' g = -0.909, 95% CI: -1.611 to -0.207; p = 0.011). rTMS of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex appears to have a positive effect in reducing core symptoms in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder.
Project description:IntroductionTo date, the medical and rehabilitation needs of people with degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) are not fully met because no curative treatment has yet been established. Movement disorders such as cerebellar ataxia and balance and gait disturbance are common symptoms of DCA. Recently, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial electrical stimulation, have been reported as possible intervention methods to improve cerebellar ataxia. However, evidence of the effects of NIBS on cerebellar ataxia, gait ability, and activity of daily living is insufficient. This study will aim to systematically evaluate the clinical effects of NIBS on patients with DCA.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will include randomised controlled trials to assess the effects of NIBS on patients with DCA. The primary clinical outcome will be cerebellar ataxia, as measured by the Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia and the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale. The secondary outcomes will include gait speed, functional ambulatory capacity and functional independence measure, as well as any other reported outcomes that the reviewer considers important. The following databases will be searched: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and PEDro. We will assess the strength of the evidence included in the studies and estimate the effects of NIBS.Ethics and disseminationBecause of the nature of systematic reviews, no ethical issues are anticipated. This systematic review will provide evidence on the effects of NIBS in patients with DCA. The findings of this review are expected to contribute to clinical decision-making towards selecting NIBS techniques for treatment and generating new clinical questions to be addressed.Prospero registration numberCRD42023379192.
Project description:In recent years, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been used for motor function recovery. However, the effects of NIBS in populations with spinal cord injury (SCI) remain unclear. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis of the existing evidence on the effects and safety of NIBS against sham groups for motor dysfunction after SCI to provide a reference for clinical decision-making. Two investigators systematically screened English articles from PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for prospective randomized controlled trials regarding the effects of NIBS in motor function recovery after SCI. Studies with at least three sessions of NIBS were included. We assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies using the evidence-based Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A meta-analysis was performed by pooling the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 14 randomized control trials involving 225 participants were included. Nine studies used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and five studies used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). The meta-analysis showed that NIBS could improve the lower extremity strength (SMD = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.02-1.14, P = 0.004), balance (SMD = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.05-1.24, P = 0.03), and decrease the spasticity (SMD = - 0.64, 95% CI = - 1.20 to - 0.03, P = 0.04). However, the motor ability of the upper extremity in the NIBS groups was not statistically significant compared with those in the control groups (upper-extremity strength: P = 0.97; function: P = 0.56; and spasticity: P = 0.12). The functional mobility in the NIBS groups did not reach statistical significance when compared with the sham NIBS groups (sham groups). Only one patient reported seizures that occurred during stimulation, and no other types of serious adverse events were reported. NIBS appears to positively affect the motor function of the lower extremities in SCI patients, despite the marginal P-value and the high heterogeneity. Further high-quality clinical trials are needed to support or refute the use and optimize the stimulation parameters of NIBS in clinical practice.
Project description:Systematic reviews of neuroimaging studies confirm stimulus-induced activity in response to verbal and non-verbal self-referential processing (SRP) in cortical midline structures, temporoparietal cortex and insula. Whether SRP can be causally modulated by way of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has also been investigated in several studies. Here we summarize the NIBS literature including 27 studies of task-based SRP comparing response between verbal and non-verbal SRP tasks. The studies differed in design, experimental tasks and stimulation parameters. Results support the role of left inferior parietal lobule (left IPL) in verbal SRP and for the medial prefrontal cortex when valenced stimuli were used. Further, results support roles for the bilateral parietal lobe (IPL, posterior cingulate cortex), the sensorimotor areas (the primary sensory and motor cortex, the premotor cortex, and the extrastriate body area) and the insula in non-verbal SRP (bodily self-consciousness). We conclude that NIBS may differentially modulate verbal and non-verbal SRP by targeting the corresponding brain areas.
Project description:ObjectiveThe primary aim of this review is to evaluate the effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on post-stroke dysphagia.MethodsThirteen databases were systematically searched through July 2014. Studies had to meet pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each study's methodological quality was examined. Effect sizes were calculated from extracted data and combined for an overall summary statistic.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials were included. These trials revealed a significant, moderate pooled effect size (0.55; 95% CI=0.17, 0.93; p=0.004). Studies stimulating the affected hemisphere had a combined effect size of 0.46 (95% CI=-0.18, 1.11; p=0.16); studies stimulating the unaffected hemisphere had a combined effect size of 0.65 (95% CI=0.14, 1.16; p=0.01). At long-term follow up, three studies demonstrated a large but non-significant pooled effect size (0.81, p=0.11).ConclusionsThis review found evidence for the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on post-stroke dysphagia. A significant effect size resulted when stimulating the unaffected rather than the affected hemisphere. This finding is in agreement with previous studies implicating the plasticity of cortical neurons in the unaffected hemisphere.SignificanceNon-invasive brain stimulation appears to assist cortical reorganization in post-stroke dysphagia but emerging factors highlight the need for more data.
Project description:ObjectivesThis review investigates the efficacy and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with psychosocial intervention on depressive symptoms.Materials and methodsWe systematically searched five electronic databases from their inception to June 2021: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Medline. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials in which NIBS plus psychosocial intervention was compared to control conditions in people with depressive symptoms were included.ResultsA total of 17 eligible studies with 660 participants were included. The meta-analysis results showed that NIBS combined with psychosocial therapy had a positive effect on moderate to severe depression ([SMD = - 0.46, 95%CI (- 0.90, - 0.02), I2 = 73%, p < .01]), but did not significantly improve minimal to mild depression ([SMD = - 0.12, 95%CI (- 0.42, 0.18), I2 = 0%, p = .63]). Compared with NIBS alone, the combination treatment had a significantly greater effect in alleviating depressive symptoms ([SMD = - 0.84, 95%CI (- 1.25, - 0.42), I2 = 0%, p = .93]). However, our results suggested that the pooled effect size of ameliorating depression of NIBS plus psychosocial intervention had no significant difference compared with the combination of sham NIBS [SMD = - 0.12, 95%CI (- 0.31, 0.07), I2 = 0%, p = .60] and psychosocial intervention alone [SMD = - 0.97, 95%CI (- 2.32, 0.38), I2 = 72%, p = .01].ConclusionNIBS when combined with psychosocial intervention has a significant positive effect in alleviating moderately to severely depressive symptoms. Further well-designed studies of NIBS combined with psychosocial intervention on depression should be carried out to consolidate the conclusions and explore the in-depth underlying mechanism.
Project description:IntroductionDexterity is described as coordinated hand and finger movement for precision tasks. It is essential for day-to-day activities like computer use, writing or buttoning a shirt. Integrity of brain motor networks is crucial to properly execute these fine hand tasks. When these networks are damaged, interventions to enhance recovery are frequently accompanied by unwanted side effects or limited in their effect. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are postulated to target affected motor areas and improve hand motor function with few side effects. However, the results across studies vary, and the current literature does not allow us to draw clear conclusions on the use of NIBS to promote hand function recovery. Therefore, we developed a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of different NIBS technologies on dexterity in diverse populations. This study will potentially help future evidence-based research and guidelines that use these NIBS technologies for recovering hand dexterity.Methods and analysisThis protocol will compare the effects of active versus sham NIBS on precise hand activity. Records will be obtained by searching relevant databases. Included articles will be randomised clinical trials in adults, testing the therapeutic effects of NIBS on continuous dexterity data. Records will be studied for risk of bias. Narrative and quantitative synthesis will be done.Ethics and disseminationNo private health information is included; the study is not interventional. Ethical approval is not required. The results will be reported in a peer-review journal.Registration detailsPROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews registration number: CRD42016043809.