Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37496734›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation for disorders of consciousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Linghui Dong, Hui Li, Hui Dang, Xiaonian Zhang, Shouwei Yue, Hao Zhang

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Linghui DongShandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Hui LiShandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Hui DangShandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Xiaonian ZhangUniversity of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Shouwei YueShandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Hao ZhangShandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Shandong University · CNChina Rehabilitation Research Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) and compare differences in efficacy between different stimulation modalities. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases for all studies published in English from inception to April 2023. Literature screening and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the therapeutic effects of NIBS. The Cochrane Q test and I Results: A total of 17 studies with 377 DoC patients were included. NIBS significantly improved the state of consciousness in DoC patients when compared to sham stimulation (WMD: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.17; I Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that the use of NIBS on patients with DoC is more effective than sham stimulation, and that rTMS of the left DLPFC may be the most prominent stimulation modality.

Indexed as

disorders of consciousness (DOC)meta-analysisnon-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS)repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS)

Identifiers

PMID37496734
PMCPMC10366382
OpenAlexW4383913680

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.