Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40608764›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2025

Effectiveness and safety of different electromagnetic stimulation therapies in treating post-stroke insomnia: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Shuan-Zhu Sun, Fan Yuan, Lie-Xi Song, Xiao-Zhong Liu, Tao Zhong, De-Liang Zhu, Ke-Yu Chen, Wei-Cheng Wang, Ruo-Yang Li

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

9 authors.

Shuan-Zhu SunGeriatric Diseases Institute of Chengdu, Department of Rehabilitation, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Fan YuanDepartment of Dermatology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Lie-Xi SongGeriatric Diseases Institute of Chengdu, Department of Rehabilitation, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Xiao-Zhong LiuGeriatric Diseases Institute of Chengdu, Department of Rehabilitation, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Tao ZhongGeriatric Diseases Institute of Chengdu, Department of Rehabilitation, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
De-Liang ZhuGeriatric Diseases Institute of Chengdu, Department of Rehabilitation, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ke-Yu ChenDepartment of traditional Chinese medicine, Chengdu Second People's Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Wei-Cheng WangGeriatric Diseases Institute of Chengdu, Department of Rehabilitation, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ruo-Yang LiGeriatric Diseases Institute of Chengdu, Department of Rehabilitation, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8268-4386

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of different electromagnetic therapies for the treatment of post-stroke insomnia (PSI). Thus, we conducted a network meta-analysis to provide evidence-based insights for clinical practice.

methodsDatabases such as PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang, and SinoMed were used to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on electromagnetic therapy for PSI, with a search deadline of Sep 2024 for each database. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs. Stata was used for network meta-analysis.

resultsWe included 28 RCTs involving 2353 patients across 12 different treatment regimens. The surface under the cumulative ranking results showed that the ranking of Pittsburgh sleep quality index decline was: cranial electrotherapy stimulation>low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS)>infra-low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (ILF-rTMS)>fastigial nucleus stimulation (FNS)>transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)>low frequency electric stimulation (L-FES)>high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS)>middle frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (MF-rTMS)>sham stimulation (SS)>common treatment (CT); Ranking of Hamilton depression scale decline degree: HF-rTMS > LF-rTMS > tDCS > SS>continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS)>MF-rTMS > CT; national Institute of health stroke scale decline ranking: HF-rTMS > LF-rTMS > SS > L-FES>electroencephalographic biomimetic stimulation>CT > cTBS; Clinical total effective rate ranking: LF-rTMS > FNS > ILF-rTMS > L-FES > CT>repetitive transcranial acupuncture stimulation.

conclusionsDifferent electromagnetic therapies can effectively improve sleep quality in PSI patients, and the efficacy and safety of LF-rTMS are significant. However, owing to the limitations of this study, the efficacy ranking cannot fully explain the advantages and disadvantages of clinical efficacy. In the future, additional multicentre, large-sample, double-blind, clinical, and randomized controlled trials are required to supplement and demonstrate the results of this study. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: This is the first study to conduct network meta-analysis on PSI treatment with different electromagnetic therapies. Simultaneously, we refined the classification based on different frequency patterns of the same therapy, and the results can serve as a reference for clinical workers. This study had some limitations: A large proportion of low-quality literature may lead to biased results; Lack of subgroup analysis, mainly because the number of studies included was not very high, and the quality of most studies was low. Basic information such as stroke site and onset time were not detailed, which may increase the possibility of inconsistency and clinical heterogeneity. After all, detailed subgroup analysis based on the stage or location of stroke can provide more meaningful clinical guidance.

Indexed as

Magnetic Field TherapySleep Initiation and Maintenance DisordersStrokeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40608764
PMCPMC12225873

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.