SynthesisBMJ open2025
Adjuvant effects of vagus nerve stimulation on post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Advances in the diagnosis and management of post-stroke limb spasticity: a narrative review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
- Left vagus nerve magnetic stimulation facilitates nasogastric tube removal in post-stroke patients with dysphagia: a prospective observational cohort study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
objectivePrevious meta-analysis only focused on the safety and effectiveness of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in upper extremities motor function in stroke patients. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of VNS for more comprehensive functional rehabilitation in stroke patients.
designThis systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024552624) and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating VNS-assisted rehabilitation in patients with stroke. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Database, covering the period up to October 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies in which the intervention group received VNS, while the control group received either sham stimulation or conventional rehabilitation alone. Studies were required to report efficacy outcomes (such as upper extremity motor function and swallowing function) as well as safety outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently performed literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan V.5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) and STATA V.18.0(StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA), using the standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes and applying a random-effects model. To explore potential sources of heterogeneity, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed, while publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test.
resultsOverall, 18 RCTs involving 954 participants were included in this study. This meta-analysis indicated that VNS could improve Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (SMD=0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20,
conclusionThe evidence supporting the use of VNS to improve function in stroke patients demonstrates reasonable reliability, a satisfactory degree of consistency and applicability, and suggests a potentially favourable clinical impact.
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.