伽马节律刺激对阿尔茨海默病认知功能的影响和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 3.7
Liuxia Wu, Yixin Wei, Kang He, Qiang Gao
{"title":"伽马节律刺激对阿尔茨海默病认知功能的影响和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Liuxia Wu, Yixin Wei, Kang He, Qiang Gao","doi":"10.1177/15459683251360733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveResearchers have focused on gamma rhythm stimulation, particularly at 40 Hz, to enhance endogenous gamma oscillations and improve cognitive function and outcomes in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, some studies disputed these findings. This review aimed to systematically analyze recent randomized controlled trials on the effects of gamma stimulation on cognitive function in AD and to perform a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, and differences between brain and sensory stimulation.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid-Embase, and Ovid-MEDLINE from their inception to April 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate adverse events and cognitive function assessed using AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Face-Name Association Test (FNAT). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the heterogeneity between the brain and sensory stimulation.ResultsEight studies involving 291 participants were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated a large benefit in cognitive function: FNAT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 3.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.52-4.99; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 65%), MMSE (SMD = 3.09; 95% CI = 2.37-3.82; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%), ADAS-cog (SMD = -4.16; 95% CI = -6.60 to -2.62; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%), and MoCA (SMD = 2.17; 95% CI = -0.54 to 4.88; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the intervention and sham groups (<i>P</i> = .06), suggesting the safety of gamma stimulation.ConclusionThis review highlights the safety and benefits of gamma stimulation for cognitive improvement in patients with AD, with sensory stimulation proving safe even in individuals with epilepsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":94158,"journal":{"name":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","volume":" ","pages":"15459683251360733"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effects and Safety of Gamma Rhythm Stimulation on Cognitive Function in Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Liuxia Wu, Yixin Wei, Kang He, Qiang Gao\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15459683251360733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveResearchers have focused on gamma rhythm stimulation, particularly at 40 Hz, to enhance endogenous gamma oscillations and improve cognitive function and outcomes in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, some studies disputed these findings. This review aimed to systematically analyze recent randomized controlled trials on the effects of gamma stimulation on cognitive function in AD and to perform a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, and differences between brain and sensory stimulation.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid-Embase, and Ovid-MEDLINE from their inception to April 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate adverse events and cognitive function assessed using AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Face-Name Association Test (FNAT). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the heterogeneity between the brain and sensory stimulation.ResultsEight studies involving 291 participants were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated a large benefit in cognitive function: FNAT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 3.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.52-4.99; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 65%), MMSE (SMD = 3.09; 95% CI = 2.37-3.82; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%), ADAS-cog (SMD = -4.16; 95% CI = -6.60 to -2.62; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%), and MoCA (SMD = 2.17; 95% CI = -0.54 to 4.88; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the intervention and sham groups (<i>P</i> = .06), suggesting the safety of gamma stimulation.ConclusionThis review highlights the safety and benefits of gamma stimulation for cognitive improvement in patients with AD, with sensory stimulation proving safe even in individuals with epilepsy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15459683251360733\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683251360733\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683251360733","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究人员一直专注于伽马节律刺激,特别是40 Hz,以增强内源性伽马振荡并改善阿尔茨海默病(AD)的认知功能和预后。然而,一些研究对这些发现提出了质疑。本综述旨在系统分析近期关于伽马刺激对AD患者认知功能影响的随机对照试验,并进行荟萃分析以评估脑刺激和感觉刺激的有效性、安全性和差异。方法系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、Ovid-Embase和Ovid-MEDLINE自成立至2024年4月的数据库。采用AD评估量表-认知子量表(ADAS-cog)、简易精神状态检查(MMSE)、蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)和面孔-姓名关联测试(FNAT)对不良事件和认知功能进行meta分析。进行亚组分析以探索大脑和感觉刺激之间的异质性。结果纳入8项研究,共291名受试者。meta分析显示在认知功能方面有很大的好处:FNAT(标准化平均差[SMD] = 3.76; 95%可信区间[CI] = 2.52-4.99; I2 = 65%), MMSE (SMD = 3.09; 95% CI = 2.37-3.82; I2 = 0%), ADAS-cog (SMD = -4.16; 95% CI = -6.60至-2.62;I2 = 0%), MoCA (SMD = 2.17; 95% CI = -0.54至4.88;I2 = 0%)。干预组与假手术组不良事件发生率无显著差异(P =。06),提示伽马刺激的安全性。结论:本综述强调了伽马刺激对AD患者认知改善的安全性和益处,感觉刺激即使对癫痫患者也是安全的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effects and Safety of Gamma Rhythm Stimulation on Cognitive Function in Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ObjectiveResearchers have focused on gamma rhythm stimulation, particularly at 40 Hz, to enhance endogenous gamma oscillations and improve cognitive function and outcomes in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, some studies disputed these findings. This review aimed to systematically analyze recent randomized controlled trials on the effects of gamma stimulation on cognitive function in AD and to perform a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, and differences between brain and sensory stimulation.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid-Embase, and Ovid-MEDLINE from their inception to April 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate adverse events and cognitive function assessed using AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Face-Name Association Test (FNAT). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the heterogeneity between the brain and sensory stimulation.ResultsEight studies involving 291 participants were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated a large benefit in cognitive function: FNAT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 3.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.52-4.99; I2 = 65%), MMSE (SMD = 3.09; 95% CI = 2.37-3.82; I2 = 0%), ADAS-cog (SMD = -4.16; 95% CI = -6.60 to -2.62; I2 = 0%), and MoCA (SMD = 2.17; 95% CI = -0.54 to 4.88; I2 = 0%). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the intervention and sham groups (P = .06), suggesting the safety of gamma stimulation.ConclusionThis review highlights the safety and benefits of gamma stimulation for cognitive improvement in patients with AD, with sensory stimulation proving safe even in individuals with epilepsy.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信