ReviewFrontiers in neurology
Advancing stroke rehabilitation: the potential and challenges of closed-loop brain-computer interface technology.
Review 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-term disability in older worldwide. As an emerging neuromodulation intervention, closed-loop brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) aim to promote the reconstruction of the damaged cortex through real-time feedback mechanisms. This study aims to systematically review the latest clinical advancements, neural mechanisms, and challenges of closed-loop BCIs in post-stroke rehabilitation. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, this study systematically searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore. Given the high methodological heterogeneity in intervention paradigms and outcome measures across different studies, a qualitative synthesis strategy was employed. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was introduced to evaluate the substantive clinical benefits of various interventions. Ultimately, 42 original studies meeting the strict definition of closed-loop systems were included. Results: Closed-loop BCI technology demonstrates multi-dimensional application potential in stroke rehabilitation. In motor rehabilitation, BCIs combined with external actuators (e.g., robotics, FES) promote interhemispheric functional rebalancing and corticospinal tract remodeling. In the cognitive domain, although neurofeedback has shown initial efficacy in improving specific executive functions and attention, the current evidence exhibits high heterogeneity and requires cautious interpretation. Regarding safety, adverse reactions to non-invasive devices primarily manifest as mild fatigue; for invasive systems, the incidence of device-related adverse events is approximately 5.6 per 1,000 device-days, indicating overall controllable safety. Conclusion: Closed-loop BCIs provide a promising novel neuromodulation strategy for stroke rehabilitation. Future validation of their efficacy and acceleration of clinical translation will rely on multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs), standardized core outcome sets (COS), and deep integration with artificial intelligence (AI).
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.