{"title":"经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)对脑卒中患者运动功能的影响:证据图谱。","authors":"Yu Qin, Jianguo Xu, Shamay Sheung Mei Ng","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02795-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To present, organize, and assess the methodological quality of the current research related to tDCS on motor function after a stroke and to identify gaps and clinical implications using an evidence mapping approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PEDro), gray literature, and reference lists of articles were searched from inception until October 2023. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and PEDro scale were used to assess the methodology quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 172 articles met the inclusion criteria from 5759 records, including 46 SRs and 126 RCTs. Related studies came from 29 countries around the world, and China has performed the most, with 12 SRs and 21 RCTs. More than half of SRs (65.22%) were evaluated with low or critically low quality, while 78.58% of RCTs have shown excellent or good quality. A total of 26 SRs and 93 RCTs have reported outcomes on upper limb motor function with kinds of tDCS, and 15 SRs and 44 RCTs have focused on lower extremity function. Studies with safety concerns have reported no or mild adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study systematically identified gaps and indicated that tDCS is a kind of potential and safe intervention. Given potential concerns on the clinical application, more high-quality research with large sample size and kinds of objectives is needed in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11899689/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor function among people with stroke: evidence mapping.\",\"authors\":\"Yu Qin, Jianguo Xu, Shamay Sheung Mei Ng\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-025-02795-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To present, organize, and assess the methodological quality of the current research related to tDCS on motor function after a stroke and to identify gaps and clinical implications using an evidence mapping approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PEDro), gray literature, and reference lists of articles were searched from inception until October 2023. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and PEDro scale were used to assess the methodology quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 172 articles met the inclusion criteria from 5759 records, including 46 SRs and 126 RCTs. Related studies came from 29 countries around the world, and China has performed the most, with 12 SRs and 21 RCTs. More than half of SRs (65.22%) were evaluated with low or critically low quality, while 78.58% of RCTs have shown excellent or good quality. A total of 26 SRs and 93 RCTs have reported outcomes on upper limb motor function with kinds of tDCS, and 15 SRs and 44 RCTs have focused on lower extremity function. Studies with safety concerns have reported no or mild adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study systematically identified gaps and indicated that tDCS is a kind of potential and safe intervention. Given potential concerns on the clinical application, more high-quality research with large sample size and kinds of objectives is needed in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11899689/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02795-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02795-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:介绍、组织和评估目前与脑卒中后运动功能相关的tDCS研究的方法学质量,并使用证据映射方法确定差距和临床意义。方法:检索6个电子数据库(PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、CINAHL、PEDro)、灰色文献和2023年10月前的文献参考文献列表。采用多重系统评价评估2 (AMSTAR-2)检查表和PEDro量表评估系统评价(SRs)和随机对照试验(rct)的方法学质量。结果:5759篇文献中有172篇符合纳入标准,其中SRs 46篇,rct 126篇。相关研究来自全球29个国家,其中中国的研究最多,有12项SRs和21项rct。超过一半(65.22%)的rct评价为低质量或极低质量,而78.58%的rct评价为优秀或良好质量。共有26项SRs和93项rct报道了各种tDCS上肢运动功能的结果,15项SRs和44项rct报道了下肢功能的结果。有安全性问题的研究报告没有或轻微的不良事件。结论:本研究系统地发现了差距,并表明tDCS是一种潜在的安全干预措施。考虑到临床应用中可能存在的问题,未来还需要更多高质量、大样本量、多目标的研究。
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor function among people with stroke: evidence mapping.
Objective: To present, organize, and assess the methodological quality of the current research related to tDCS on motor function after a stroke and to identify gaps and clinical implications using an evidence mapping approach.
Methods: Six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PEDro), gray literature, and reference lists of articles were searched from inception until October 2023. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and PEDro scale were used to assess the methodology quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Results: A total of 172 articles met the inclusion criteria from 5759 records, including 46 SRs and 126 RCTs. Related studies came from 29 countries around the world, and China has performed the most, with 12 SRs and 21 RCTs. More than half of SRs (65.22%) were evaluated with low or critically low quality, while 78.58% of RCTs have shown excellent or good quality. A total of 26 SRs and 93 RCTs have reported outcomes on upper limb motor function with kinds of tDCS, and 15 SRs and 44 RCTs have focused on lower extremity function. Studies with safety concerns have reported no or mild adverse events.
Conclusions: This study systematically identified gaps and indicated that tDCS is a kind of potential and safe intervention. Given potential concerns on the clinical application, more high-quality research with large sample size and kinds of objectives is needed in the future.
期刊介绍:
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.