非侵入性脑电波刺激治疗退行性小脑共济失调的效果:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Movement Disorders Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1002/mdc3.14205
Akiyoshi Matsugi, Hiroyuki Ohtsuka, Kyota Bando, Yuki Kondo, Yutaka Kikuchi
{"title":"非侵入性脑电波刺激治疗退行性小脑共济失调的效果:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Akiyoshi Matsugi, Hiroyuki Ohtsuka, Kyota Bando, Yuki Kondo, Yutaka Kikuchi","doi":"10.1002/mdc3.14205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), as a neurological intervention for degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) based on preregistration (PROSPERO: CRD42023379192).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to explore clinical outcomes and examine the parameters associated with NIBS efficacy in DCA patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Cochrane Library, CHINAL, and PEDro databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction, quality assessment, and heterogeneity analyses were conducted; the Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence and a meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen RCTs that included 661 patients on the scale for assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and 606 patients on the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) were included. These RCTs showed a serious risk of bias (RoB) and low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. NIBS significantly reduced SARA (MD = -2.49, [95% confidence interval: -3.34, -1.64]) and ICARS (-5.27 [-7.06, -3.47]); the subgroup analysis showed significant effects: rTMS and tES reduced both outcomes. However, there were no significant differences in the effects of rTMS and tES. Additional subgroup analysis indicated the impact of rTMS frequency and the total number of tES sessions on ataxia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-invasive brain stimulation may reduce ataxia in DCA patients, but the estimated effect size may change in future studies because the RoB was serious and the certainty of evidence was low, and the heterogeneity was high. To establish evidence for selecting NIBS methods and parameters, continued high-quality RCTs are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":19029,"journal":{"name":"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice","volume":" ","pages":"1323-1334"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542298/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Degenerative Cerebellar Ataxia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Akiyoshi Matsugi, Hiroyuki Ohtsuka, Kyota Bando, Yuki Kondo, Yutaka Kikuchi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mdc3.14205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), as a neurological intervention for degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) based on preregistration (PROSPERO: CRD42023379192).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to explore clinical outcomes and examine the parameters associated with NIBS efficacy in DCA patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Cochrane Library, CHINAL, and PEDro databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction, quality assessment, and heterogeneity analyses were conducted; the Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence and a meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen RCTs that included 661 patients on the scale for assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and 606 patients on the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) were included. These RCTs showed a serious risk of bias (RoB) and low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. NIBS significantly reduced SARA (MD = -2.49, [95% confidence interval: -3.34, -1.64]) and ICARS (-5.27 [-7.06, -3.47]); the subgroup analysis showed significant effects: rTMS and tES reduced both outcomes. However, there were no significant differences in the effects of rTMS and tES. Additional subgroup analysis indicated the impact of rTMS frequency and the total number of tES sessions on ataxia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-invasive brain stimulation may reduce ataxia in DCA patients, but the estimated effect size may change in future studies because the RoB was serious and the certainty of evidence was low, and the heterogeneity was high. To establish evidence for selecting NIBS methods and parameters, continued high-quality RCTs are required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1323-1334\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542298/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.14205\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.14205","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估非侵入性脑刺激(NIBS),包括重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)和经颅电刺激(tES),作为神经系统干预治疗退行性小脑共济失调(DCA)的有效性:我们的目的是探索小脑共济失调(DCA)患者的临床疗效,并研究与 NIBS 疗效相关的参数:我们在 PubMed、Cochrane Library、CHINAL 和 PEDro 数据库中检索了相关的随机对照试验 (RCT)。进行了数据提取、质量评估和异质性分析;采用分级、推荐、评估、发展和评价来评估证据质量,并进行了荟萃分析:结果:共纳入了17项研究性试验,其中共济失调评估和评级量表(SARA)纳入了661名患者,国际合作共济失调评级量表(ICARS)纳入了606名患者。这些研究表明,这两项结果均存在严重的偏倚风险(RoB)和较低的证据确定性。NIBS 可明显降低 SARA(MD = -2.49,[95% 置信区间:-3.34, -1.64])和 ICARS(-5.27 [-7.06, -3.47]);亚组分析显示,经颅磁刺激和 tES 可明显降低这两项结果。不过,经颅磁刺激和经颅磁刺激的效果没有明显差异。其他亚组分析表明了经颅磁刺激频率和经颅磁刺激治疗总次数对共济失调的影响:结论:非侵入性脑部刺激可减轻DCA患者的共济失调,但由于RoB严重、证据确定性低且异质性高,未来研究中估计的效应大小可能会发生变化。要为选择非侵入性脑部刺激方法和参数提供证据,需要继续进行高质量的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Degenerative Cerebellar Ataxia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), as a neurological intervention for degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) based on preregistration (PROSPERO: CRD42023379192).

Objective: We aimed to explore clinical outcomes and examine the parameters associated with NIBS efficacy in DCA patients.

Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, CHINAL, and PEDro databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction, quality assessment, and heterogeneity analyses were conducted; the Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence and a meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Seventeen RCTs that included 661 patients on the scale for assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and 606 patients on the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) were included. These RCTs showed a serious risk of bias (RoB) and low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. NIBS significantly reduced SARA (MD = -2.49, [95% confidence interval: -3.34, -1.64]) and ICARS (-5.27 [-7.06, -3.47]); the subgroup analysis showed significant effects: rTMS and tES reduced both outcomes. However, there were no significant differences in the effects of rTMS and tES. Additional subgroup analysis indicated the impact of rTMS frequency and the total number of tES sessions on ataxia.

Conclusion: Non-invasive brain stimulation may reduce ataxia in DCA patients, but the estimated effect size may change in future studies because the RoB was serious and the certainty of evidence was low, and the heterogeneity was high. To establish evidence for selecting NIBS methods and parameters, continued high-quality RCTs are required.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
218
期刊介绍: Movement Disorders Clinical Practice- is an online-only journal committed to publishing high quality peer reviewed articles related to clinical aspects of movement disorders which broadly include phenomenology (interesting case/case series/rarities), investigative (for e.g- genetics, imaging), translational (phenotype-genotype or other) and treatment aspects (clinical guidelines, diagnostic and treatment algorithms)
×
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