Luis Leal-Vega, Adrián Martín-Gutiérrez, Antonio Dueñas-Laita, Marta Ruiz-Mambrilla, León Morales-Quezada, David García-Azorín, María Begoña Coco-Martín, Juan Francisco Arenillas-Lara
{"title":"Non-invasive brain stimulation to improve visual perception after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Luis Leal-Vega, Adrián Martín-Gutiérrez, Antonio Dueñas-Laita, Marta Ruiz-Mambrilla, León Morales-Quezada, David García-Azorín, María Begoña Coco-Martín, Juan Francisco Arenillas-Lara","doi":"10.1080/10749357.2025.2572470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) in improving visual perception in stroke patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of NIBS in improving visual perception in stroke patients up to 5 September 2025. Meta-analyses, forest and funnel plots and risk of bias assessment were performed using RevMan Web, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADEpro GDT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7 RCTs met the eligibility criteria, of which 6 had data available for meta-analysis. Random effects meta-analyses showed that NIBS versus sham stimulation had a large effect size on visual perception in stroke patients as determined by the Motor-free Visual Perception Test (MVPT) (4 RCTs, <i>n</i> = 124, 82 men, 42 women; SMD [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.48 - 1.19]; I<sup>2</sup>: 0%); and that NIBS combined with other therapies versus other therapies alone had a large effect size on visual perception in stroke patients as determined by the MVPT (2 RCTs, <i>n</i> = 32, 14 men, 18 women; SMD [95% CI]: 1.20 [-0.42 - 2.82]; I<sup>2</sup>: 70%). There was no publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is low-certainty evidence in favor of NIBS versus sham stimulation and very low-certainty evidence in favor of NIBS combined with other therapies versus other therapies alone for improving visual perception in stroke patients.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024594263.</p>","PeriodicalId":23164,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2025.2572470","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To assess the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) in improving visual perception in stroke patients.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of NIBS in improving visual perception in stroke patients up to 5 September 2025. Meta-analyses, forest and funnel plots and risk of bias assessment were performed using RevMan Web, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADEpro GDT.
Results: A total of 7 RCTs met the eligibility criteria, of which 6 had data available for meta-analysis. Random effects meta-analyses showed that NIBS versus sham stimulation had a large effect size on visual perception in stroke patients as determined by the Motor-free Visual Perception Test (MVPT) (4 RCTs, n = 124, 82 men, 42 women; SMD [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.48 - 1.19]; I2: 0%); and that NIBS combined with other therapies versus other therapies alone had a large effect size on visual perception in stroke patients as determined by the MVPT (2 RCTs, n = 32, 14 men, 18 women; SMD [95% CI]: 1.20 [-0.42 - 2.82]; I2: 70%). There was no publication bias.
Conclusions: There is low-certainty evidence in favor of NIBS versus sham stimulation and very low-certainty evidence in favor of NIBS combined with other therapies versus other therapies alone for improving visual perception in stroke patients.
期刊介绍：
Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation is the leading journal devoted to the study and dissemination of interdisciplinary, evidence-based, clinical information related to stroke rehabilitation. The journal’s scope covers physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology, neurorehabilitation, neural engineering and therapeutics, neuropsychology and cognition, optimization of the rehabilitation system, robotics and biomechanics, pain management, nursing, physical therapy, cardiopulmonary fitness, mobility, occupational therapy, speech pathology and communication. There is a particular focus on stroke recovery, improving rehabilitation outcomes, quality of life, activities of daily living, motor control, family and care givers, and community issues.
The journal reviews and reports clinical practices, clinical trials, state-of-the-art concepts, and new developments in stroke research and patient care. Both primary research papers, reviews of existing literature, and invited editorials, are included. Sharply-focused, single-issue topics, and the latest in clinical research, provide in-depth knowledge.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
