Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36635693›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on motor function after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jian-Min Chen, Xiao-Lu Li, Qin-He Pan, Ye Yang, Sen-Ming Xu, Jian-Wen Xu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jian-Min Chen *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China.
Xiao-Lu Li *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China.
Qin-He Pan *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China.
Ye YangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China.
Sen-Ming XuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China.
Jian-Wen XuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China. xujianwen@gxmu.edu.cn.
Guangxi Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of GuangXi Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

methodsTwo 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).

resultsA 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.

conclusionNIBS 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.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord InjuriesTranscranial Direct Current StimulationBrainHumansMuscle SpasticityProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranscranial Magnetic StimulationMotor functionNon-invasive brain stimulationRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationSpinal cord injuriesTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36635693
PMCPMC9837916
OpenAlexW4315779302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.