The comparative evidence of efficacy of non-invasive brain and nerve stimulation in diabetic neuropathy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Ping-Tao Tseng, Bing-Yan Zeng, Chih-Wei Hsu, Chao-Ming Hung, Brendon Stubbs, Yen-Wen Chen, Tien-Yu Chen, Jiann-Jy Chen, Wei-Te Lei, Yow-Ling Shiue, Chih-Sung Liang
{"title":"The comparative evidence of efficacy of non-invasive brain and nerve stimulation in diabetic neuropathy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Ping-Tao Tseng, Bing-Yan Zeng, Chih-Wei Hsu, Chao-Ming Hung, Brendon Stubbs, Yen-Wen Chen, Tien-Yu Chen, Jiann-Jy Chen, Wei-Te Lei, Yow-Ling Shiue, Chih-Sung Liang","doi":"10.1186/s12984-025-01614-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diabetes mellitus is a highly burdensome metabolic disorder, affecting over 100 million people worldwide and leading to numerous complications. Among these, diabetic neuropathy is one of the most common, with approximately 60% of individuals with diabetes developing this condition. Current pharmacological treatments for diabetic neuropathy are often inadequate, providing limited efficacy and accompanied by a range of adverse effects. Non-invasive brain and nerve stimulation techniques have been proposed as potentially beneficial for diabetic neuropathy, though existing evidence remains inconclusive. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of various non-invasive brain and nerve stimulation interventions in patients with diabetic neuropathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of non-invasive brain or nerve stimulation in patients with diabetic neuropathy, from inception to September 6, 2024. The primary outcome was the change in pain severity, while secondary outcomes included changes in quality of life and sleep disturbance. Acceptability was assessed through dropout rates (i.e., withdrawal from the study before completion for any reason). A frequentist-based NMA was performed, utilizing odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) as effect size measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The NMA, which included 15 RCTs (totaling 1,139 participants, with a mean age of 61.2 years and a mean female proportion of 53.8%), evaluated 10 experimental interventions (1 control group, 4 non-invasive brain stimulation methods, and 5 non-invasive nerve stimulation methods). The analysis revealed that only transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was associated with significantly greater improvements in pain severity (SMD = - 1.67, 95%CIs = - 2.64 to - 0.71) and sleep disruption (SMD = - 1.63, 95%CIs = - 2.27 to - 0.99) compared to the control group. None of the studied interventions showed significant differences in dropout rates or all-cause mortality compared to the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides comparative evidence supporting the use of specific brain and nerve stimulation interventions in managing diabetic neuropathy. Future well-designed RCTs with longer treatment durations are recommended to further validate the long-term efficacy of these interventions. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42024587660.</p>","PeriodicalId":16384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","volume":"22 1","pages":"88"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12008842/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-025-01614-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a highly burdensome metabolic disorder, affecting over 100 million people worldwide and leading to numerous complications. Among these, diabetic neuropathy is one of the most common, with approximately 60% of individuals with diabetes developing this condition. Current pharmacological treatments for diabetic neuropathy are often inadequate, providing limited efficacy and accompanied by a range of adverse effects. Non-invasive brain and nerve stimulation techniques have been proposed as potentially beneficial for diabetic neuropathy, though existing evidence remains inconclusive. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of various non-invasive brain and nerve stimulation interventions in patients with diabetic neuropathy.

Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of non-invasive brain or nerve stimulation in patients with diabetic neuropathy, from inception to September 6, 2024. The primary outcome was the change in pain severity, while secondary outcomes included changes in quality of life and sleep disturbance. Acceptability was assessed through dropout rates (i.e., withdrawal from the study before completion for any reason). A frequentist-based NMA was performed, utilizing odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) as effect size measures.

Results: The NMA, which included 15 RCTs (totaling 1,139 participants, with a mean age of 61.2 years and a mean female proportion of 53.8%), evaluated 10 experimental interventions (1 control group, 4 non-invasive brain stimulation methods, and 5 non-invasive nerve stimulation methods). The analysis revealed that only transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was associated with significantly greater improvements in pain severity (SMD = - 1.67, 95%CIs = - 2.64 to - 0.71) and sleep disruption (SMD = - 1.63, 95%CIs = - 2.27 to - 0.99) compared to the control group. None of the studied interventions showed significant differences in dropout rates or all-cause mortality compared to the control group.

Conclusion: This study provides comparative evidence supporting the use of specific brain and nerve stimulation interventions in managing diabetic neuropathy. Future well-designed RCTs with longer treatment durations are recommended to further validate the long-term efficacy of these interventions. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42024587660.

非侵入性脑和神经刺激治疗糖尿病神经病变疗效的比较证据:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。
背景:糖尿病是一种高度繁重的代谢紊乱,影响着全球超过1亿人,并导致许多并发症。其中,糖尿病性神经病变是最常见的一种,大约60%的糖尿病患者会出现这种情况。目前糖尿病神经病变的药物治疗往往是不充分的,提供有限的疗效,并伴有一系列的不良反应。非侵入性脑和神经刺激技术被认为对糖尿病神经病变有潜在的益处,尽管现有的证据仍然不确定。本系统综述和网络荟萃分析(NMA)旨在评估各种非侵入性脑和神经刺激干预对糖尿病神经病变患者的比较疗效。方法:系统检索电子数据库,检索自研究开始至2024年9月6日,对糖尿病神经病变患者进行无创脑或神经刺激的随机对照试验(rct)。主要结果是疼痛严重程度的改变,而次要结果包括生活质量的改变和睡眠障碍。可接受性是通过退出率来评估的(即,在完成研究之前因任何原因退出研究)。使用95%置信区间(95% ci)的优势比(OR)和标准化平均差(SMD)作为效应量测量,进行基于频率的NMA。结果:NMA共纳入15项随机对照试验(共1139人,平均年龄61.2岁,平均女性比例53.8%),评估了10项实验干预措施(1个对照组,4种无创脑刺激方法,5种无创神经刺激方法)。分析显示,与对照组相比,只有经皮神经电刺激(TENS)与疼痛严重程度(SMD = - 1.67, 95% ci = - 2.64至- 0.71)和睡眠中断(SMD = - 1.63, 95% ci = - 2.27至- 0.99)的显著改善有关。与对照组相比,所研究的干预措施均未显示出辍学率或全因死亡率的显著差异。结论:本研究提供了支持使用特异性脑和神经刺激干预治疗糖尿病神经病变的比较证据。建议将来设计良好的rct,延长治疗时间,以进一步验证这些干预措施的长期疗效。试验注册PROSPERO CRD42024587660。
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
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.90%
发文量
122
审稿时长
24 months
期刊介绍: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation considers manuscripts on all aspects of research that result from cross-fertilization of the fields of neuroscience, biomedical engineering, and physical medicine & rehabilitation.
×
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