Dataset Information

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Dysphagia after Stroke

ABSTRACT:

Background

Dysphagia is a common sequelae after stroke. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a tool that has been used in the rehabilitation process to modify cortical excitability and improve dysphagia.

Objective

To systematically evaluate the effect of NIBS on dysphagia after stroke and compare the effects of two different NIBS.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials about the effect of NIBS on dysphagia after stroke were retrieved from databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM, from inception to June 2021. The quality of the trials was assessed, and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A statistical analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.3 and ADDIS 1.16.8. The effect size was evaluated by using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Ultimately, 18 studies involving 738 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that NIBS could improve the dysphagia outcome and severity scale (DOSS) score (standard mean difference (SMD) = 1.44, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.08, P < 0.05) and the water swallow test score (SMD = 6.23, 95% CI 5.44 to 7.03, P < 0.05). NIBS could reduce the standardized swallowing assessment (SSA) score (SMD = −1.04, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.58, P < 0.05), the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) score (SMD = −0.85, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.36, P < 0.05), and the functional dysphagia scale score (SMD = −1.05, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.62, P < 0.05). Network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of two different NIBS on the DOSS score is rTMS (P = 0.52) > tDCS (P = 0.48), the best probabilistic ranking of the SSA score is rTMS (P = 0.72) > tDCS (P = 0.28), and the best probabilistic ranking of the PAS score is rTMS (P = 0.68) > tDCS (P = 0.32).

Conclusion

Existing evidence showed that NIBS could improve swallowing dysfunction and reduce the occurrence of aspiration after stroke, and that rTMS is better than tDCS. Limited by the number of included studies, more large-sample, multicenter, double-blind, high-quality clinical randomized controlled trials are still needed in the future to further confirm the results of this research.

SUBMITTER: Li L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8580697 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dysphagia is one of the most common symptoms in patients after stroke onset, which has multiple unfavorable effects on quality of life and functional recovery. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation that is widely used to improve deglutition function. Recently, some studies have confirmed that tDCS enhances deglutition function after stroke. However, the number of evaluation indexes used in those studies was small, and the number of trials included was limited. Most importantly, the optimal stimulation protocol is still uncertain and the safety of tDCS has not been reviewed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address these shortcomings.MethodsSeven databases were searched entirely, including Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), Wan-fang database, and the Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) from inception to 31 December 2021. Two reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of retrieved data according to the selection criteria and assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes, measures, and indicators used in this study included the dysphagia outcome and severity scale (DOSS), modified Mann assessment of swallowing ability (MMASA), functional oral intake scale (FOIS), functional dysphagia scale (FDS), and Kubota's water-drinking test (KWDT). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the intervention effect more specifically.ResultsFifteen trials with a total of 787 participants (394 subjects in the tDCS groups were treated with true tDCS, and 393 subjects in the control groups were wait-listed or treated with sham tDCS) involving tDCS for dysphagia after stroke and were included in the meta-analysis. Results of this meta-analysis confirmed that tDCS had a positive effect on post-stroke dysphagia. Subgroup analyses revealed that bilateral and high-intensity stimulation with tDCS had a more significant impact on post-stroke dysphagia. Furthermore, no adverse events occurred during the application of tDCS for post-stroke dysphagia.ConclusiontDCS can promote the recovery of deglutition function in patients with dysphagia after stroke. In addition, bilateral stimulation and high-intensity stimulation may have better effects. However, the safety evidence for tDCS and post-stroke dysphagia is insufficient.

Project description:Objective: To evaluated the efficacy and safety of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with antidepressants in patients with poststroke depression (PSD). Methods: Seven databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials of NIBS combined with antidepressants in the treatment of PSD based on the international classification of diseases (ICD-10) criteria and exclusion criteria. The retrieval time was from the database establishment to 31 October 2021. Two researchers independently screened the identified studies through the search strategy, extracted their characteristics, and evaluated the quality of the included literature. Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess risk of bias. RevMan 5.3 software was applied for meta-analysis. Results: A total of 34 randomized controlled trials were included, involving 2,711 patients with PSD. Meta-analysis showed that the total effective rate was higher in the combined therapy than the antidepressant alone [odds ratio (OR): 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.07 to 6.11; p < 0.00001]. The Hamilton depressive scale (HAMD) score was significantly lower in repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (≤10 Hz) combined with antidepressant than in antidepressant alone [standard mean difference (SMD): -1.44; 95% CI: -1.86 to -1.03; p < 0.00001]. No significant difference was seen in rTMS (>10 Hz) combined with antidepressant versus antidepressant alone (SMD: -4.02; 95% CI: -10.43 to 2.39; p = 0.22). In addition, combination therapy more strongly improved the modified Barthel index (MBI) scale than antidepressants [mean difference (MD): 8.29; 95% CI: 5.23-11.35; p < 0.00001]. Adverse effects were not significantly different between two therapies (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.87 to 2.04; p = 0.18). Conclusion: Low-frequency rTMS (≤10 Hz) combined with antidepressants tends to be more effective than antidepressants alone in patients with PSD, and there are no significant adverse effects. In addition, combined therapy may enhance quality of life after stroke. Combination therapy with high-frequency rTMS (>10 Hz) showed no advantage in treating PSD. The transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) combined with antidepressants might be more effective than antidepressants alone, which are needed to confirm by more clinical trials since the.

Project description:BackgroundDeep brain stimulation (DBS) has shown promise in effectively treating chronic pain. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of DBS in this context.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, following the PRISMA guidelines. A well-constructed search strategy was utilized. Our literature search identified two groups of subjects: one group underwent DBS specifically for chronic pain treatment (DBS-P), while the second group received DBS for other indications (DBS-O), such as Parkinson's disease or dystonia, with pain perception investigated as a secondary outcome in this population. Meta-analysis was performed using R version 4.2.3 software. Heterogeneity was assessed using the tau^2 and I^2 indices, and Cochran's Q-test was conducted.ResultsThe analysis included 966 patients in 43 original research studies with chronic pain who underwent DBS (340 for DBS-P and 625 for DBS-O). Subgroup analysis revealed that DBS-P exhibited a significant effect on chronic pain relief, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 1.65 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [1.31; 2.00]. Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies, with an I^2 value of 85.8%. However, no significant difference was found between DBS-P and DBS-O subgroups. Subgroup analyses based on study design, age, pain diseases, and brain targets demonstrated varying levels of evidence for the effectiveness of DBS across different subgroups. Additionally, meta-regression analyses showed no significant relationship between age or pain duration and DBS effectiveness for chronic pain.ConclusionThese findings significantly contribute to the expanding body of knowledge regarding the utility of DBS in the management of chronic pain. The study underscores the importance of conducting further research to enhance treatment outcomes and elucidate patient-specific factors that are associated with treatment response.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=428442, identifier CRD42023428442.

Project description:BackgroundCentral post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a common condition. Several pharmacotherapies have been applied in practice. However, the comparative effectiveness among these pharmacotherapies is unknown.AimThe aim of this study is to study the comparative effectiveness among differential pharmacotherapies for CPSP through a network meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science from inception to 30 March 2022, without any language restriction. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias (RoB). The outcome of interest of the study was the change in the scores of pain intensity scales. We estimated standard mean differences (SMDs) between treatments and calculated corresponding 95% CIs.ResultsThirteen randomized controlled trials (529 participants) were included after a screen of 1774 articles. Compared with placebo, pamidronate (SMD -2.43, 95% CI -3.54 to -1.31; P - score = 0.93), prednisone (SMD -2.38, 95% CI -3.09 to -1.67; P - score = 0.92), levetiracetam (SMD -2.11, 95% CI -2.97 to -1.26; P - score = 0.87), lamotrigine (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.58; P - score = 0.73), etanercept (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.8 to -0.03; P - score = 0.59), and pregabalin (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.22; P - score = 0.41) had significantly better treatment effect. Pamidronate, prednisone, and levetiracetam ranked as the first three most effective treatments. In subgroup analyses, prednisone, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and pregabalin were more effective than placebo as oral pharmacotherapies, while etanercept was more effective than placebo as injectable pharmacotherapy.ConclusionsOur study confirmed that pamidronate, prednisone, and guideline-recommended anticonvulsants were effective for reducing pain intensity for CPSP. Pamidronate and prednisone showed better effect than other pharmacotherapies, which warrants further investigation.

Project description:Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results 23 randomised trials involving 94?656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.