SynthesisJournal of neurology2026
Effect of noninvasive brain stimulation for unilateral spatial neglect after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundUnilateral spatial neglect (USN) is one of the most common behavioral cognitive impairments after stroke, limiting functional activities and impairing daily life. Increasing evidence suggests that noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) holds a promising therapeutic potential in the field of post-stroke neglect rehabilitation, but its effect still needs to be systematically evaluated.
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of NIBS for the treatment of USN after stroke and to examine the effect of moderating variables (e.g., stroke phase, protocol type) on the effect sizes of NIBS treatment.
methodsSystematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or crossover RCTs on NIBS for the treatment of USN from four databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The search period spanned from inception to May 1, 2025. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the NIBS interventions (rTMS, TBS, tDCS and tACS). The primary outcomes included the line bisection test (LBT), star cancellation test (SCT), and catherine bergego scale (CBS).
resultsThe results of 17 studies (425 patients) showed that different effects of various NIBS interventions (rTMS, TBS, tDCS and tACS) on USN outcomes: rTMS significantly reduced LBT (SMD = -1.82, P < 0.00001), SCT (SMD = -1.59, P < 0.00001), and CBS (MD = -2.76, P = 0.002); TBS significantly reduced SCT (SMD = -2.59, P = 0.03) and CBS (MD = -0.93, P < 0.0001); tDCS significantly reduced LBT (SMD = -0.60, P = 0.0009) and SCT (SMD = -0.60, P = 0.001); while tACS showed no significant difference compared to the control group in improving LBT (SMD = 0.04, P = 0.93) and SCT (SMD = -0.32, P = 0.49). Additionally, subgroup analyses showed that intervention timing and NIBS protocol type exerted moderating effects on treatment effect in USN patients. Intervention during the acute stroke phase may yield greater effect compared to those in the chronic phase (P < 0.00001). Excitatory NIBS protocols targeting the ipsilesional posterior parietal cortex (PPC) may yield greater therapeutic potential than inhibitory protocols applied to the contralesional PPC (P < 0.05).
conclusionrTMS and TBS showed greater therapeutic potential than tDCS and tACS in reducing neglect severity and improving activities of daily living. In addition, modulating variables may potentially influence the therapeutic effect of NIBS intervention. Specifically, early intervention and excitatory NIBS protocols applied to the ipsilesional PPC for post-stroke USN patients may have greater therapeutic potential.
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.