SynthesisBehavioural neurology2026
Exploring Hemispheric Vulnerability in Crossed Cerebellar Diaschisis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Behavioural neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Hemispheric asymmetries in rodent models of neurological diseases: a systematic review.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring Hemispheric Vulnerability in Crossed Cerebellar Diaschisis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Behavioural neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe cerebellum is increasingly recognized as a hub for motor, cognitive, and affective functions. Crossed cerebellar diaschisis (CCD) refers to decreased cerebellar activity or metabolism contralateral to a supratentorial lesion and is associated with functional deficits. The distribution of hemispheric involvement may reflect lesion lateralization and is of interest for future research into its potential clinical relevance.
methodsA systematic search in PubMed and EBSCO using "(cerebellar diaschisis) AND ((hemisphere) OR (lateralization))" following PRISMA guidelines was performed. Original studies including patients with CCD assessed via neuroimaging were included. A random-effects proportion meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled proportion of left-sided cerebellar CCD, with left-sided as the reference category in a binary classification of hemispheric CCD laterality. Study-specific proportions were calculated as the number of left-sided cases divided by total CCD cases. A logit transformation (PLOGIT) with inverse-variance weighting was applied. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q, I
resultsSeventeen studies comprising a total of 328 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled proportion of left-sided CCD was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.39-0.51). Statistical heterogeneity was low, although moderate heterogeneity could not be excluded due to imprecision (Q(16) = 15.99, p = 0.45; I
conclusionsThe present meta-analysis found no evidence for preferential distribution of CCD between cerebellar hemispheres. Moderate study variability was present. CCD remains an intriguing research area, but most available studies are small and heterogeneous. Further well-powered investigations are needed to clarify potential hemispheric patterns and their clinical relevance.
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.