Lingling Li1, Hailiang Huang2. 1. College of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, 250355, Shandong, China. 2. College of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, 250355, Shandong, China. 60120006@sdutcm.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the effect of noninvasive neuromodulation (NINM) on unilateral neglect (UN) after stroke and compare the effects of different NINMs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of NINM on UN after stroke were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM databases from inception to January 2022. The risk of bias and quality of the trials were assessed following the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and the physiotherapy evidence database PEDro Scale. Statistical analysis was conducted with Stata 16.0 and R 4.0.2. This study was registered on PROSPERO (No. CRD42021295336). RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs involving 291 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that NINM could reduce the line bisection test (LBT) score (SMD = - 1.56, 95% CI - 2.10 ~ - 1.03, P < 0.05), the line cancellation test score (SMD = - 1.83, 95% CI - 2.39 ~ - 1.27, P < 0.05), and the star cancellation test score (SMD = - 2.85, 95% CI - 4.93 ~ - 0.76, P < 0.05). Network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of different NINMs on the LBT score was theta-burst stimulation (TBS) (P = 0.915) > repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.068) > transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Existing evidence showed that NINM could improve UN after stroke and that TBS was best. Due to the number of included studies and sample size, more large-sample, multicenter, double-blinded, high-quality clinical RCTs are still needed in the future to further confirm the results of this research.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the effect of noninvasive neuromodulation (NINM) on unilateral neglect (UN) after stroke and compare the effects of different NINMs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of NINM on UN after stroke were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM databases from inception to January 2022. The risk of bias and quality of the trials were assessed following the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and the physiotherapy evidence database PEDro Scale. Statistical analysis was conducted with Stata 16.0 and R 4.0.2. This study was registered on PROSPERO (No. CRD42021295336). RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs involving 291 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that NINM could reduce the line bisection test (LBT) score (SMD = - 1.56, 95% CI - 2.10 ~ - 1.03, P < 0.05), the line cancellation test score (SMD = - 1.83, 95% CI - 2.39 ~ - 1.27, P < 0.05), and the star cancellation test score (SMD = - 2.85, 95% CI - 4.93 ~ - 0.76, P < 0.05). Network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of different NINMs on the LBT score was theta-burst stimulation (TBS) (P = 0.915) > repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.068) > transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Existing evidence showed that NINM could improve UN after stroke and that TBS was best. Due to the number of included studies and sample size, more large-sample, multicenter, double-blinded, high-quality clinical RCTs are still needed in the future to further confirm the results of this research.
Authors: Ana Paula S Salazar; Patrícia G Vaz; Ritchele R Marchese; Cinara Stein; Camila Pinto; Aline S Pagnussat Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Giovanni Di Pino; Giovanni Pellegrino; Giovanni Assenza; Fioravante Capone; Florinda Ferreri; Domenico Formica; Federico Ranieri; Mario Tombini; Ulf Ziemann; John C Rothwell; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Igor D Bandeira; Daniel H Lins-Silva; Judah L Barouh; Daniela Faria-Guimarães; Ingrid Dorea-Bandeira; Lucca S Souza; Gustavo S Alves; André R Brunoni; Michael Nitsche; Felipe Fregni; Rita Lucena Journal: Prog Brain Res Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 2.453
Authors: Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur; Andrea Antal; Samar S Ayache; David H Benninger; Jérôme Brunelin; Filippo Cogiamanian; Maria Cotelli; Dirk De Ridder; Roberta Ferrucci; Berthold Langguth; Paola Marangolo; Veit Mylius; Michael A Nitsche; Frank Padberg; Ulrich Palm; Emmanuel Poulet; Alberto Priori; Simone Rossi; Martin Schecklmann; Sven Vanneste; Ulf Ziemann; Luis Garcia-Larrea; Walter Paulus Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2016-10-29 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: A Suppa; Y-Z Huang; K Funke; M C Ridding; B Cheeran; V Di Lazzaro; U Ziemann; J C Rothwell Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur; André Aleman; Chris Baeken; David H Benninger; Jérôme Brunelin; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Saša R Filipović; Christian Grefkes; Alkomiet Hasan; Friedhelm C Hummel; Satu K Jääskeläinen; Berthold Langguth; Letizia Leocani; Alain Londero; Raffaele Nardone; Jean-Paul Nguyen; Thomas Nyffeler; Albino J Oliveira-Maia; Antonio Oliviero; Frank Padberg; Ulrich Palm; Walter Paulus; Emmanuel Poulet; Angelo Quartarone; Fady Rachid; Irena Rektorová; Simone Rossi; Hanna Sahlsten; Martin Schecklmann; David Szekely; Ulf Ziemann Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 3.708