SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Efficacy of brain-computer interface with functional electrical stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and conventional therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and network 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Closed-loop brain-computer interfaces for post-stroke sensorimotor loop restoration.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
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: To systematically evaluate and rank the efficacy of brain-computer interface-based functional electrical stimulation (BCI-FES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), functional electrical stimulation (FES), conventional therapy (CT), and their combination (BCI-FES + tDCS) on upper limb functional recovery after stroke, and to compare the advantages of different intervention combinations through network meta-analysis, providing evidence-based medicine for clinical practice. Methods: A network meta-analysis method was used to comprehensively compare the efficacy of BCI-FES, tDCS and conventional motor rehabilitation in upper limb rehabilitation of stroke survivors. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Stata software, including direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. The direct meta-analysis used mean difference (MD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) as effect size indicators. The network meta-analysis was performed within a Bayesian framework using the gemtc package in R. Results: A total of 13 relevant studies were finally included, comprising 11 two-arm studies and 2 three-arm studies, with a total of 777 subjects. Direct comparison meta-analysis showed: BCI-FES vs. CT MD = 6.01 (95%CI: 2.19, 9.83); BCI-FES vs. FES MD = 3.85 (95%CI: 2.17, 5.53); BCI-FES vs. tDCS MD = 6.53 (95%CI: 5.57, 7.48); BCI-FES + tDCS vs. BCI-FES MD = 3.25 (95%CI: -1.05, 7.55); BCI-FES + tDCS vs. tDCS MD = 6.05 (95%CI: -2.72, 14.82). BCI-FES showed significantly better effects than CT, FES and tDCS in improving FMA. Network meta-analysis: The inconsistency model was not significant ( Conclusion: The combined application of BCI-FES and tDCS appears promising for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke, with potential therapeutic advantages arising from multimodal promotion of neuroplasticity. However, given the small number of trials, methodological variability, and risk of bias, this conclusion should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than definitive guidance. Future studies should further verify its clinical benefits through standardized stimulation protocols, individualized parameter optimization and multicenter long-term follow-up studies, to promote the translational application of brain-computer interface technology in the field of neurorehabilitation. Systematic review registration: INPLASY202550066.
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.