SynthesisScientific reports2023
Effects and safety of vagus nerve stimulation on upper limb function in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjuvant effects of vagus nerve stimulation on post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- An integrated investigation of systemic and localized pathophysiological mechanisms of stroke and multimodal therapeutic strategies.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Review
- Motor Recovery After a Hemispherectomy: Review of Mechanisms and the Potential of Neuromodulation to Enhance Motor Outcomes.Journal of child neurology · 2026Review
- Article
- Roles of the Cholinergic and Adrenergic Systems in Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the Recovery of Motor Function in Patients with Stroke: Opportunities for Novel Treatments and Rehabilitation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- A Review of Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Disease: Comprehensive Theory and Evidence for Mechanisms of Action.Comprehensive physiology · 2026Review
- Profiled Wet Spinning of Polyurethane Composites for Soft Dry Electrodes in Transcutaneous Stimulation Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multifaceted support for caregivers of stroke patients to meet the dynamic needs of patients: A qualitative study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Mechanisms of Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Improving Motor Dysfunction After Stroke.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2024Review
- Research hotspots and frontiers of vagus nerve stimulation in stroke: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- Multimodal therapeutic efficacy assessment of vagus nerve stimulation in stroke: integrated application of imaging, electrophysiological, and behavioral indicators.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is used to deliver electric current to stimulate the vagus nerve. The aim of this study is to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine its effects on motor function in patients with stroke. PubMED, Embase, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus were searched. Data on time since stroke, and mean scores and standard deviation on outcomes such as level of impairment and motor function were extracted. The results showed that invasive (MD 2.66, 95% CI 1.19-4.13, P = 0.0004) and non-invasive (MD 24.16, 95% CI 23.56-24.75, P = 0.00001) VNS are superior at improving level of motor impairment than the control post intervention and at follow-up respectively. Similarly, VNS improved motor function post intervention (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.41, P < 0.0001); and there was no significant difference in adverse events between invasive VNS and control (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.97-4.74, P = 0.06), and between non-invasive VNS and control (OR 4.54, 95% CI 0.48-42.97, P = 0.19). VNS can be used to improve motor function in patients with stroke.
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.