Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39616389›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024

Examining the effectiveness of motor imagery combined with non-invasive brain stimulation for upper limb recovery in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Wendong Zhang, Weibo Li, Xiaolu Liu, Qingqing Zhao, Mingyu Gao, Zesen Li, Peiyuan Lv, Yu Yin

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Wendong ZhangDepartment of Rehabilitation, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Weibo LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050000, China.
Xiaolu LiuDepartment of Rehabilitation, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Qingqing ZhaoShanxi Health Vocational College, Jinzhong, 030619, China.
Mingyu GaoGraduate School of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050000, China.
Zesen LiGraduate School of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050000, China.
Peiyuan LvDepartment of Rehabilitation, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Yu YinDepartment of Rehabilitation, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China. yinyu-99@163.com.

Funding

Hebei Province Medical Applicable Technology Tracking Project GZ2020010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are common non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methods for functional recovery after stroke. Motor imagery (MI) can be used in the rehabilitation of limb motor function after stroke, but its effectiveness remains to be rigorously established. Furthermore, there is a growing interest in the combined application of NIBS with MI, yet the evidence regarding its impact on the recovery of upper limb function after stroke is inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to demonstrate whether combining the two is superior to NIBS alone or MI alone to provide a reference for clinical decision-making.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Science Direct, CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on the effects of MI combined NIBS in motor function recovery after stroke until February 2024. The outcomes of interest were associated with body functions or structure (impairment) and activity (functional). The primary outcome was assessed with the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity (FMA-UE) for motor function of the upper limbs and the modified Barthel Index (MBI) for the ability to perform daily living activities. For secondary outcomes, functional activity level was measured using wolf motor function test (WMFT) and action research arm test (ARAT), and cortical excitability was assessed using cortical latency of motor evoked potential (MEP-CL) and central motor conduction time (CMCT). The methodological quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the evidence‑based Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the mean differences (MD) or the standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with random-effect models.

resultsA total of 14 articles, including 886 patients, were reviewed in the meta-analysis. In comparison with MI or NIBS alone, the combined therapy significantly improved the motor function of the upper limbs (MD = 5.43; 95% CI 4.34-6.53; P < 0.00001) and the ability to perform activities of daily living (MD = 11.07; 95% CI 6.33-15.80; P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses showed an interaction between the stage of stroke, the type of MI, and the type of NIBS with the effect of the combination therapy.

conclusionThe combination of MI and NIBS may be a promising therapeutic approach to enhance upper limb motor function, functional activity, and activities of daily living after stroke. SYSTEMATIC REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42023493073.

Indexed as

Imagery, PsychotherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationUpper ExtremityCombined Modality TherapyHumansStrokeMeta-analysisMotor imageryNon-invasive brain stimulationRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationStrokeTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39616389
PMCPMC11607983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.