{"title":"评估经颅直流电刺激治疗难治性癫痫的疗效:对研究性试验和非研究性试验的荟萃分析。","authors":"Yuteng Sun , Xian Tang , Ye Li , Chao Gao , Zhiyuan Shen , Xiaosu Guo , Xin Guo , Zibin Wei , Yicun Jia , Mengyi Zheng , Yaxin Zhang , Yuan Xing , Shujuan Tian","doi":"10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2024.107456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>An increasing number of research indicate that non-invasive neurostimulation techniques, like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), can effectively control refractory epilepsy. While previous meta-analyses have primarily focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this study expands the scope by including both RCTs and non-RCTs to provide a more comprehensive assessment of tDCS efficacy in treating refractory epilepsy. Through a systematic search of \"PUBMED, Embase and Cochrane\", we sought relevant studies related to the research topic. We utilized the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias for the RCTs and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool to evaluate the quality of the non-RCTs included in this meta-analysis. In addition, a protocol for this meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024496837 <span><span>http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> PROSPERO). A total of 14 studies, including 8 RCTs and 6 non-RCTs , involving 307 subjects with refractory epilepsy, were included in this meta-analysis. The combined analysis of RCTs and non-RCTs indicated that tDCS was effective in reducing seizure frequency (SF) in refractory epilepsy patients, with significant improvements observed both four weeks (MD = −4.54; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.69 to −3.38) and eight weeks (MD = −3.49; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.37 to −1.61) after stimulation.</div><div>There were no statistically significant differences in Interictal Epileptiform Discharges (IEDs) shortly after stimulation (MD = −3.59; p = 0.42; 95 % CI = −12.33–5.16). However, a reduction was observed at four weeks (MD = −5.28; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −6.88 to −3.68) and eight weeks post-stimulation (MD = −3.37; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.35 to −1.40). The patient's adverse reactions were mild, and they could be relieved shortly after discontinuation of the stimulus. The quality of evidence across outcomes was assessed as moderate. The results indicate that tDCS demonstrates promising efficacy and safety in managing seizures in refractory epilepsy. While this meta-analysis provides valuable findings, additional large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to further confirm the efficacy of tDCS for refractory epilepsy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11914,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy Research","volume":"208 ","pages":"Article 107456"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation for refractory epilepsy: A meta-analysis of RCTs and non-RCTs\",\"authors\":\"Yuteng Sun , Xian Tang , Ye Li , Chao Gao , Zhiyuan Shen , Xiaosu Guo , Xin Guo , Zibin Wei , Yicun Jia , Mengyi Zheng , Yaxin Zhang , Yuan Xing , Shujuan Tian\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2024.107456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>An increasing number of research indicate that non-invasive neurostimulation techniques, like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), can effectively control refractory epilepsy. While previous meta-analyses have primarily focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this study expands the scope by including both RCTs and non-RCTs to provide a more comprehensive assessment of tDCS efficacy in treating refractory epilepsy. Through a systematic search of \\\"PUBMED, Embase and Cochrane\\\", we sought relevant studies related to the research topic. We utilized the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias for the RCTs and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool to evaluate the quality of the non-RCTs included in this meta-analysis. In addition, a protocol for this meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024496837 <span><span>http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> PROSPERO). A total of 14 studies, including 8 RCTs and 6 non-RCTs , involving 307 subjects with refractory epilepsy, were included in this meta-analysis. The combined analysis of RCTs and non-RCTs indicated that tDCS was effective in reducing seizure frequency (SF) in refractory epilepsy patients, with significant improvements observed both four weeks (MD = −4.54; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.69 to −3.38) and eight weeks (MD = −3.49; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.37 to −1.61) after stimulation.</div><div>There were no statistically significant differences in Interictal Epileptiform Discharges (IEDs) shortly after stimulation (MD = −3.59; p = 0.42; 95 % CI = −12.33–5.16). However, a reduction was observed at four weeks (MD = −5.28; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −6.88 to −3.68) and eight weeks post-stimulation (MD = −3.37; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.35 to −1.40). The patient's adverse reactions were mild, and they could be relieved shortly after discontinuation of the stimulus. The quality of evidence across outcomes was assessed as moderate. The results indicate that tDCS demonstrates promising efficacy and safety in managing seizures in refractory epilepsy. While this meta-analysis provides valuable findings, additional large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to further confirm the efficacy of tDCS for refractory epilepsy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsy Research\",\"volume\":\"208 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107456\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epilepsy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920121124001712\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920121124001712","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluating the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation for refractory epilepsy: A meta-analysis of RCTs and non-RCTs
An increasing number of research indicate that non-invasive neurostimulation techniques, like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), can effectively control refractory epilepsy. While previous meta-analyses have primarily focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this study expands the scope by including both RCTs and non-RCTs to provide a more comprehensive assessment of tDCS efficacy in treating refractory epilepsy. Through a systematic search of "PUBMED, Embase and Cochrane", we sought relevant studies related to the research topic. We utilized the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias for the RCTs and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool to evaluate the quality of the non-RCTs included in this meta-analysis. In addition, a protocol for this meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024496837 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/ PROSPERO). A total of 14 studies, including 8 RCTs and 6 non-RCTs , involving 307 subjects with refractory epilepsy, were included in this meta-analysis. The combined analysis of RCTs and non-RCTs indicated that tDCS was effective in reducing seizure frequency (SF) in refractory epilepsy patients, with significant improvements observed both four weeks (MD = −4.54; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.69 to −3.38) and eight weeks (MD = −3.49; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.37 to −1.61) after stimulation.
There were no statistically significant differences in Interictal Epileptiform Discharges (IEDs) shortly after stimulation (MD = −3.59; p = 0.42; 95 % CI = −12.33–5.16). However, a reduction was observed at four weeks (MD = −5.28; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −6.88 to −3.68) and eight weeks post-stimulation (MD = −3.37; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −5.35 to −1.40). The patient's adverse reactions were mild, and they could be relieved shortly after discontinuation of the stimulus. The quality of evidence across outcomes was assessed as moderate. The results indicate that tDCS demonstrates promising efficacy and safety in managing seizures in refractory epilepsy. While this meta-analysis provides valuable findings, additional large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to further confirm the efficacy of tDCS for refractory epilepsy.
期刊介绍:
Epilepsy Research provides for publication of high quality articles in both basic and clinical epilepsy research, with a special emphasis on translational research that ultimately relates to epilepsy as a human condition. The journal is intended to provide a forum for reporting the best and most rigorous epilepsy research from all disciplines ranging from biophysics and molecular biology to epidemiological and psychosocial research. As such the journal will publish original papers relevant to epilepsy from any scientific discipline and also studies of a multidisciplinary nature. Clinical and experimental research papers adopting fresh conceptual approaches to the study of epilepsy and its treatment are encouraged. The overriding criteria for publication are novelty, significant clinical or experimental relevance, and interest to a multidisciplinary audience in the broad arena of epilepsy. Review articles focused on any topic of epilepsy research will also be considered, but only if they present an exceptionally clear synthesis of current knowledge and future directions of a research area, based on a critical assessment of the available data or on hypotheses that are likely to stimulate more critical thinking and further advances in an area of epilepsy research.