ReviewJournal of central nervous system disease2024
A narrative review of vagus nerve stimulation in stroke.
Review in Journal of central nervous system disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review of Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Disease: Comprehensive Theory and Evidence for Mechanisms of Action.Comprehensive physiology · 2026Review
- Gastrointestinal dysfunction after brain injury: Mechanisms and the role of the brain-gut axis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Cholinergic regulation of neuroinflammation: linking microglia, immunometabolism, and neuromodulation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- From disruption to remodeling: the evolution and therapeutic prospects of Neuroimmune Regulatory Circuitry after ischemic stroke.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stroke is a significant health concern impacting society and the health care system. Reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke and standard rehabilitative therapies may not always be effective at improving post-stroke neurological function, and developing alternative strategies is particularly important. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a treatment option currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for intractable epilepsy, refractory depression, primary headache disorders, obesity, and moderate to severe upper-limb motor dysfunction in chronic ischemic stroke patients. Moreover, VNS has demonstrated potential efficacy in various conditions, including autoimmune diseases, disorders of consciousness, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, traumatic brain injury, stroke, and other diseases. Although the popularity and application of VNS continue to increase rapidly, the field generally lacks a consensus on the optimal stimulation parameters. The stimulation parameters for VNS are directly related to the clinical outcome, and determining the optimal stimulation conditions for VNS has become an essential concern in its clinical application. This review summarizes the current evidence on VNS for stroke in preclinical models and clinical trials in humans, paying attention to the current types and stimulation parameters of VNS, highlighting the mechanistic pathways involved in the beneficial effects of VNS, critically evaluating clinical implementation challenges and proposing some suggestions for its future research directions. Achieving safe and effective clinical transformation of VNS requires further animal and clinical studies to determine the optimal stimulation parameters and therapeutic mechanisms.
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.