SynthesisMedicine2022
Does noninvasive cerebellar stimulation improve the balance and walking function of patients with stroke: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of Cerebellar Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Function of Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving balance capacity and activity of daily living in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Combine effects of robotic assisted gait training with transcranial magnetic stimulation on gait metrics and balance in stroke patients: a pilot randomized control.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInvestigating the efficacy and safety of noninvasive cerebellar stimulation in improving the balance and walking function of patients with stroke.
methodsWe searched 7 databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to noninvasive cerebellar stimulation in the treatment of stroke. The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and Barthel Index (BI) were used as the outcome indexes to evaluate balance, walking and activities of daily living (ADL). The quality of the research was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the difference between the noninvasive cerebellar stimulation and control groups. Heterogeneity tests were performed to assess differences in treatment effects across noninvasive cerebellar stimulation modalities. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the robustness of the results.
resultsSeven studies were included, and 5 articles (71.43%) were rated as having a low risk of bias. Among the primary outcome indicators, 4 of the 7 articles were combined into the fixed effect model (I2 = 38%, P = .18). Compared with the control group, noninvasive cerebellar stimulation improved the BBS score, and the difference was statistically significant (mean difference [MD]: 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-5.40, P = .03); the sensitivity analysis showed that the statistical model was still stable after sequentially eliminating each article. Compared with the control group, noninvasive cerebellar stimulation improved the 6MWT results of patients with stroke (MD: 25.29, 95% CI: 4.86-45.73, P = .02). However, noninvasive cerebellar stimulation did not improve the BI (MD: 15.61, 95% CI: -7.91 to 39.13, P = .19). No safety problems or adverse reactions to noninvasive cerebellar stimulation were observed.
conclusionsNoninvasive cerebellar stimulation improves balance and walking function of patients with stroke, but its effect on ADL is uncertain. Due to the methodological weaknesses in the included trials, more RCTs are needed to confirm our conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.