Comparative efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation therapies for recovery of global cognitive function, attention, memory, and executive function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Yao Wang, Wan Liu, Jiu Chen, Jianling Bai, Hao Yu, Hongxia Ma, Jiang Rao, Guangxu Xu
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation therapies for recovery of global cognitive function, attention, memory, and executive function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Yao Wang,&nbsp;Wan Liu,&nbsp;Jiu Chen,&nbsp;Jianling Bai,&nbsp;Hao Yu,&nbsp;Hongxia Ma,&nbsp;Jiang Rao,&nbsp;Guangxu Xu","doi":"10.1177/20406223231168754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Which noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) treatment - transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) - is more beneficial for stroke patients' cognitive rehabilitation is still up for debate.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our goal is to provide an overview of the research on the effectiveness and safety of various NIBS protocols.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This NMA compared any active NIBS <i>versus</i> sham stimulation in adult stroke survivors to enhance cognitive function, with a focus on global cognitive function (GCF), attention, memory, and executive function (EF) using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The NMA statistical approach was built on a frequency framework. The effect size was estimated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). We compiled a relative ranking of the competing interventions based on their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NMA showed that high-frequency repeated TMS (HF-rTMS) improved GCF compared with sham stimulation (SMD = 1.95; 95% CI: 0.47-3.43), while dual-tDCS improved memory performance <i>versus</i> sham stimulation significantly (SMD = 6.38; 95% CI: 3.51-9.25). However, various NIBS stimulation protocols revealed no significant impact on enhancing attention, executive function, or activities of daily living. There was no significant difference between the active stimulation protocols for TMS and tDCS and sham stimulation in terms of safety. Subgroup analysis demonstrated an effect favoring activation site of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (SUCRA = 89.1) for enhancing GCF and bilateral DLPFC (SUCRA = 99.9) stimulation for enhancing memory performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The HF-rTMS over the left DLPFC appears to be the most promising NIBS therapeutic option for improving global cognitive performance after stroke, according to a comparison of numerous NIBS protocols. Furthermore, for patients with post-stroke memory impairment, dual-tDCS over bilateral DLPFC may be more advantageous than other NIBS protocols. Both tDCS and TMS are reasonably safe.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO ID: CRD42022304865.</p>","PeriodicalId":22960,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease","volume":"14 ","pages":"20406223231168754"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ea/9b/10.1177_20406223231168754.PMC10272674.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20406223231168754","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Which noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) treatment - transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) - is more beneficial for stroke patients' cognitive rehabilitation is still up for debate.

Objectives: Our goal is to provide an overview of the research on the effectiveness and safety of various NIBS protocols.

Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: This NMA compared any active NIBS versus sham stimulation in adult stroke survivors to enhance cognitive function, with a focus on global cognitive function (GCF), attention, memory, and executive function (EF) using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The NMA statistical approach was built on a frequency framework. The effect size was estimated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). We compiled a relative ranking of the competing interventions based on their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results: NMA showed that high-frequency repeated TMS (HF-rTMS) improved GCF compared with sham stimulation (SMD = 1.95; 95% CI: 0.47-3.43), while dual-tDCS improved memory performance versus sham stimulation significantly (SMD = 6.38; 95% CI: 3.51-9.25). However, various NIBS stimulation protocols revealed no significant impact on enhancing attention, executive function, or activities of daily living. There was no significant difference between the active stimulation protocols for TMS and tDCS and sham stimulation in terms of safety. Subgroup analysis demonstrated an effect favoring activation site of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (SUCRA = 89.1) for enhancing GCF and bilateral DLPFC (SUCRA = 99.9) stimulation for enhancing memory performance.

Conclusion: The HF-rTMS over the left DLPFC appears to be the most promising NIBS therapeutic option for improving global cognitive performance after stroke, according to a comparison of numerous NIBS protocols. Furthermore, for patients with post-stroke memory impairment, dual-tDCS over bilateral DLPFC may be more advantageous than other NIBS protocols. Both tDCS and TMS are reasonably safe.

Registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022304865.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

不同的无创脑刺激疗法对中风后整体认知功能、注意力、记忆和执行功能恢复的比较疗效:随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析。
背景:无创脑刺激(NIBS)治疗——经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)还是经颅磁刺激(TMS)——对脑卒中患者的认知康复更有益,目前仍存在争议。目的:我们的目标是对各种NIBS协议的有效性和安全性的研究进行概述。设计:随机对照试验(rct)的系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA)。方法:该NMA比较了任何激活NIBS与假刺激在成年中风幸存者中增强认知功能的效果,重点是全球认知功能(GCF)、注意力、记忆和执行功能(EF),使用数据库MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science和ClinicalTrials.gov。NMA统计方法是建立在频率框架上的。效应量由标准化平均差(SMD)和95%置信区间(CI)估计。我们根据相互竞争的干预措施在累积排名曲线(SUCRA)下的表面对其进行了相对排名。结果:NMA显示,与假性刺激相比,高频重复TMS (HF-rTMS)可改善GCF (SMD = 1.95;95% CI: 0.47-3.43),而双tdcs与假刺激相比显著改善了记忆表现(SMD = 6.38;95% ci: 3.51-9.25)。然而,各种NIBS刺激方案显示对增强注意力、执行功能或日常生活活动没有显著影响。在安全性方面,TMS和tDCS的主动刺激方案与假刺激方案没有显著差异。亚组分析表明,左侧背外侧前额叶皮层(DLPFC)激活位点(SUCRA = 89.1)对增强GCF有促进作用,双侧DLPFC (SUCRA = 99.9)刺激对增强记忆表现有促进作用。结论:根据众多NIBS方案的比较,左侧DLPFC的HF-rTMS似乎是最有希望改善中风后整体认知表现的NIBS治疗选择。此外,对于卒中后记忆障碍患者,双tdcs比双侧DLPFC可能比其他NIBS方案更有利。tDCS和TMS都相当安全。注册:普洛斯彼罗ID: CRD42022304865。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease
Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
108
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease publishes the highest quality peer-reviewed research, reviews and scholarly comment in the drug treatment of all chronic diseases. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers involved in the medical treatment of chronic disease, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信