SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on balance control in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor function in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as an Adjunct to Physiotherapy in Lacunar Stroke.Cureus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on balance control in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The goal is to identify the most effective treatment strategies and provide valuable evidence for clinical decision-making. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and CNKI Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of NIBS on balance control in patients with MS. The search period was from the inception of each database to August 11, 2025. The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) are the primary outcome measures, with adverse events being the secondary outcome measure. Two researchers independently performed literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment. The quality of the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) and the GRADE proGDT software was used to evaluate the evidence grading recommendation standards (GRADE) for outcomes. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 and StataMP 18 software. For binary variables, the effect size is measured using the risk ratio (RR), while for continuous variables, the effect size is measured using the mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the results. A funnel plot was constructed, and Egger's test was performed to evaluate potential publication bias. Results: A total of 17 RCTs with 514 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that NIBS can shorten the time taken for TUG [MD = -1.03, 95% CI (-1.86, -0.20)] and improve BBS scores [MD = 3.35, 95% CI (1.31, 5.39)], indicating that NIBS may improve both dynamic and static balance. Subgroup analysis revealed that interventions lasting ≥4 weeks were associated with a reduction in TUG completion time and an increase in BBS scores. Furthermore, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) demonstrated favorable effects on both TUG and BBS outcomes, while evidence supporting the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remained limited. Although adverse events such as itching, warmth, tension, and fatigue were reported in NIBS group, these were generally mild and transient. Conclusion: This study suggests that NIBS may serve as an effective adjunctive therapy for balance rehabilitation in patients with MS, showing benefits in both dynamic and static balance. However, its application is accompanied by mild and transient adverse effects, necessitating a careful balance between efficacy and safety in clinical practice. The current evidence is limited by heterogeneity among included studies and short follow-up durations. Future research should focus on large-scale, high-quality RCTs to further validate the long-term efficacy of NIBS, optimize stimulation parameters, and promote the development of individualized treatment strategies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD420251121717.
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.