ReviewBiomedicines2024
Effects of Cerebellar Non-Invasive Stimulation on Neurorehabilitation in Stroke Patients: An Updated Systematic Review.
Review in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Effects of combined cerebellar tACS-iTBS in individuals with ataxia (EtABeta): a crossover investigation.Trials · 2026Article
- Exploring the Effects of a Computerized Naming Intervention Combined with Cerebellar tDCS in Cantonese-Speaking Individuals with Aphasia.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Closed-loop brain-computer interfaces for post-stroke sensorimotor loop restoration.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Modern Technologies Supporting Motor Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A review of the impact of circadian rhythm on motor function in stroke recovery patients.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.
Funding
Abstract
The cerebellum is emerging as a promising target for noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS). A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effects of cerebellar NIBS on both motor and other symptoms in stroke rehabilitation, its impact on functional ability, and potential side effects (PROSPERO number: CRD42022365697). A systematic electronic database search was performed by using PubMed Central (PMC), EMBASE, and Web of Science, with a cutoff date of November 2023. Data extracted included study details, NIBS methodology, outcome measures, and results. The risk of bias in eligible studies was also assessed. Twenty-two clinical studies involving 1016 participants were finally included, with a focus on outcomes related to post-stroke motor recovery (gait and balance, muscle spasticity, and upper limb dexterity) and other functions (dysphagia and aphasia). Positive effects were observed, especially on motor functions like gait and balance. Some efficiency was also observed in dysphagia rehabilitation. However, findings on language recovery were preliminary and inconsistent. A slight improvement in functional ability was noted, with no serious adverse effects reported. Further studies are needed to explore the effects of cerebellar NIBS on post-stroke non-motor deficits and to understand how cerebellar engagement can facilitate more precise treatment strategies for stroke rehabilitation.
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.