SynthesisJournal of neurology2025
Non-invasive neurostimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness, safety, and optimal stimulation parameters.
Synthesis in Journal of 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-resistant epilepsy is a common and disabling condition, with few non-surgical treatment options. Non-invasive neurostimulation is an emerging therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy, though evidence is mixed and comparisons between modalities remain challenging. This review systematically appraises and compares the effectiveness and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), low-intensity focused ultrasound (LI-FUS), transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) and trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS) in drug-resistant epilepsy. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness in seizure reduction (primary outcome), and a meta-regression analysis was conducted to investigate optimal parameters. Sixty-three studies (1342 active participants, 505 controls) were included. At the end of follow-up, pooled mean changes in seizure frequency were: rTMS - 30.2% (95% CI: [- 49.6, - 10.7%]), tDCS - 46.9% (95% CI: [- 66.6, - 27.3%]), and tVNS - 49.2% (95% CI: [- 86.7, - 11.8%]). There was insufficient data to determine effect sizes in tACS, LI-FUS and TNS. Responder rates (percentage of participants with a > 50% decrease in seizure frequency) were: rTMS 38% (95% CI: [24, 51%]), tDCS 49% (95% CI: [32, 66%]), tVNS 29% (95% CI: [7, 50%]), and TNS 42% (95% CI: [24, 60%]); with inadequate data for tACS and LI-FUS. No serious adverse events were reported, and seizure precipitation was rare. rTMS and tDCS demonstrate the strongest evidence for effectiveness, while tVNS and TNS show promise, and tACS and LI-FUS require further study. These findings, while encouraging, should be interpreted in the context of methodological heterogeneity between studies and overall low certainty of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41351627What 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.