SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Effects of noninvasive brain stimulation in the treatment of poststroke depression: an overview of systematic reviews.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, although numerous meta-analyses/systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) have explored the therapeutic effect of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on poststroke depression, the reliability and quality of its clinical evidence remain uncertain. Therefore, this study aims to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NIBS for PSD, thereby providing evidence-based support for clinical decision-making. Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, Wan Fang, and CBM, was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of NIBS for PSD. Following the literature screen and data extraction, the quality of the included studies was assessed using the PRISMA statement for reporting quality, the AMSTAR-2 tool for methodological quality, and the GRADE system for evidence quality. We extracted the main outcome indicators of depressive symptoms and the secondary outcome indicators of neurological function, cognitive function, daily living ability, anxiety symptoms, clinical efficiency and adverse reactions for analysis. Results: A total of 20 MAs/SRs were included. According to the PRISMA statement, 6 (30%) reports were relatively complete, 13 (65%) had problems, and 1 (5%) had serious information deficiencies. The results of the AMSTAR-2 evaluation revealed that 3 articles (15%) were of moderate quality, 5 (25%) were of low quality, and 12 (60%) were of critically low quality. Thus, the overall quality was not high. The GRADE evaluation revealed that a total of 66 evidence bodies were included: 9 (13.6%) had moderate evidence, 15 (22.8%) had low-level evidence, and 42 (63.6%) had very low-level evidence, and no high-quality outcome indicator was identified. Conclusion: The included studies revealed that NIBS is an effective and safe treatment for PSD. However, because the methodology and results of the MAs/SRs were generally not of high quality, the reliability of the conclusions is limited to a certain extent. Future research should focus on conducting more high-quality, large-sample, multicenter follow-up studies to further verify the value of applying NIBS in PSD treatment. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025633044, identifier CRD42025633044.
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.