ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Efficacy of Neurostimulations for Upper Extremity Function Recovery after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Combination of different noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for upper limb recovery in stroke patients: A systematic review.Brain and behavior · 2024Pooled it
- Most Effective Interventions for Improving Upper Extremity Function in Patients with Hemiparesis.Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Autonomic dysfunction and treatment strategies in intracerebral hemorrhage.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Review
- Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Ischemic Stroke.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeurostimulations for the post-stroke recovery of upper extremity function has been explored in previous research, but there remains a controversy about the superiority of different neurostimulations.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov, from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2022. A conventional pair-wise meta-analysis with a random-effect model was used to evaluate direct evidence. Bayesian random effect models were used for network meta-analysis. The grading of the recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to assess the clinical quality of the results.
resultsA total of 88 RCTs, which enrolled 3491 participants, were included. For the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity score change from the baseline to the longest follow-up, the following interventions showed a significant difference: VNS (MD = 4.12, 95%CrI: 0.54 to 7.80, moderate certainty), cNMES (MD = 3.98, 95%CrI: 1.05 to 6.92, low certainty), FES (MD = 7.83, 95%CrI: 4.42 to 11.32, very low certainty), drTMS (MD = 7.94, 95%CrI: 3.71 to 12.07, moderate certainty), LFrTMS (MD = 2.64, 95%CrI: 1.20 to 4.11, moderate certainty), HFrTMS (MD = 6.73, 95%CrI: 3.26 to 10.22, moderate certainty), and iTBS combined with LFrTMS (MD = 5.41, 95%CrI: 0.48 to 10.35, moderate certainty).
conclusionsThe neurostimulations above the revealed significant efficacy for improving the upper limb function after stroke eased the suffering of the patient.
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.