Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of Different Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Protocols for Stroke: A Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proven to be effective in the upper limb motor function and activities of daily living (ADL), the therapeutic effects of different stimulation protocols have not been effectively compared. To fill this gap, this study carried out the comparison of the upper limb motor function and ADL performance of patients with stroke through a network meta-analysis.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the rTMS therapy for stroke were searched from various databases, including PubMed, web of science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Wanfang database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP information (www.cqvip.com). The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to January 2021. Meanwhile, five independent researchers were responsible for the study selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation. The outcome measures included Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Modified Barthel Index (MBI), the National Institute of Health stroke scale (NIHSS), and adverse reactions. The Gemtc 0.14.3 software based on the Bayesian model framework was used for network meta-analysis, and funnel plots and network diagram plots were conducted using Stata14.0 software.

Results

Ninety-five studies and 5,016 patients were included ultimately. The intervention measures included were as follows: placebo, intermittent theta-burst stimulation (ITBS), continuous theta-burst stimulation (CTBS),1 Hz rTMS,3-5 Hz rTMS, and ≥10 Hz rTMS. The results of the network meta-analysis show that different rTMS protocols were superior to placebo in terms of UE-FMA, NIHSS, and MBI outcomes. In the probability ranking results, ≥10 Hz rTMS ranked first in UE-FMA, WMFT, and MBI. For the NIHSS outcome, the ITBS ranked first and 1 Hz rTMS ranked the second. The subgroup analyses of UE-FMA showed that ≥10 Hz rTMS was the best stimulation protocol for mild stroke, severe stroke, and the convalescent phase, as well as ITBS was for acute and subacute phases. In addition, it was reported in 13 included studies that only a few patients suffered from adverse reactions, such as headache, nausea, and emesis.

Conclusion

Overall, ≥10 Hz rTMS may be the best stimulation protocol for improving the upper limb motor function and ADL performance in patients with stroke. Considering the impact of stroke severity and phase on the upper limb motor function, ≥10 Hz rTMS may be the preferred stimulation protocol for mild stroke, severe stroke, and for the convalescent phase, and ITBS for acute and subacute phases.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier [CRD42020212253].

SUBMITTER: Xia Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9240662 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCognitive impairment is a prevalent consequence of stroke, seriously affecting recovery and quality of life while imposing substantial burdens on both patients' families and society. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has emerged as an effective intervention for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). However, the a lack of standardized and explicit guidelines regarding rTMS application parameters. Therefore, this study systematically evaluated the efficacy of various parameters of rTMS in treating PSCI and explored its potential mechanism.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search across seven scientific databases, namely China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform (Wanfang), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of rTMS for PSCI. The search encompassed the period from database creation until July 28, 2023. To evaluate the risk of bias in included studies, we employed the Cochrane recommended risk of bias assessment tool. Furthermore, we extracted relevant clinical application parameters associated with rTMS and performed comparative analyses to assess their therapeutic effects under different parameter settings.ResultsThe present study included 45 RCTs involving a total of 3,066 patients with PSCI. Both high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) demonstrated safety and efficacy, yet failed to exhibit significant differentiation in terms of cognitive improvement. Furthermore, intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), although yielding positive results, did not surpass traditional rTMS in effectiveness. Combining HF-rTMS with LF-rTMS resulted in superior efficacy compared to single rTMS intervention. Moreover, the combination of rTMS with other cognitive therapies exhibited potential for enhanced benefits among patients.ConclusionrTMS can effectively and safely enhance cognitive function, improve quality of life, and enhance activities of daily living in patients with PSCI. Furthermore, the combination of rTMS with other conventional rehabilitation methods can yield additional positive effects. However, due to insufficient evidence, an optimal parameter protocol for rTMS can not be currently recommended. Future research should prioritize orthogonal experimental design methods that incorporate multiple parameters and levels to determine the optimal parameter protocol for rTMS in PSCI.

Project description:BackgroundIt had been assumed that suppressing the undamaged contralesional motor cortex by repetitive low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or increasing the excitability of the damaged hemisphere cortex by high-frequency rTMS will promote function recovery after stroke.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of rTMS for improving function in people with stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), the Chinese Stroke Trials Register (April 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2012), EMBASE (1980 to May 2012), Science Citation Index (1981 to April 2012), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to April 2012), CINAHL (1982 to May 2012), AMED (1985 to May 2012), PEDro (April 2012), REHABDATA (April 2012) and CIRRIE Database of International Rehabilitation Research (April 2012). In addition, we searched five Chinese databases, ongoing trials registers and relevant reference lists.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials comparing rTMS therapy with sham therapy or no therapy. We excluded trials that reported only laboratory parameters.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We resolved disagreements by discussion.Main resultsWe included 19 trials involving a total of 588 participants in this review. Two heterogenous trials with a total of 183 participants showed that rTMS treatment was not associated with a significant increase in the Barthel Index score (mean difference (MD) 15.92, 95% CI -2.11 to 33.95). Four trials with a total of 73 participants were not found to have a statistically significant effect on motor function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI -0.99 to 2.01). Subgroup analyses of different stimulation frequencies or duration of illness also showed no significant difference. Few mild adverse events were observed in the rTMS groups, with the most common events being transient or mild headaches (2.4%, 8/327) and local discomfort at the site of the stimulation.Authors' conclusionsCurrent evidence does not support the routine use of rTMS for the treatment of stroke. Further trials with larger sample sizes are needed to determine a suitable rTMS protocol and the long-term functional outcome.

Project description:A core feature of drug-resistant epilepsy is hyperexcitability in the motor cortex, and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a suitable treatment for seizures. However, the antiepileptic effect causing network reorganization has rarely been studied. Here, we assessed the impact of rTMS on functional network connectivity (FNC) in resting functional networks (RSNs) and their relation to treatment response. Fourteen patients with medically intractable epilepsy received inhibitive rTMS with a figure-of-eight coil over the vertex for 10 days spread across two weeks. We designed a 6-week follow-up phase divided into four time points to investigate FNC and rTMS-induced timing-dependent plasticity, such as seizure frequency and abnormal interictal discharges on electroencephalography (EEG). For psychiatric comorbidities, the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) and the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) were applied to measure depression and anxiety before and after rTMS. FNC was also compared to that of a cohort of 17 healthy control subjects. The after-effects of rTMS included all subjects that achieved the significant decrease rate of more than 50% in interictal epileptiform discharges and seizure frequency, 12 (14) patients with the reduction rate above 50% compared to the baseline, as well as emotional improvements in depression and anxiety (p < 0.05). In the analysis of RSNs, we found a higher synchronization between the sensorimotor network (SMN) and posterior default-mode network (pDMN) in epileptic patients than in healthy controls. In contrast to pre-rTMS, the results demonstrated a weaker FNC between the anterior DMN (aDMN) and SMN after rTMS, while the FNC between the aDMN and dorsal attention network (DAN) was greater (p < 0.05, FDR corrected). Importantly, the depressive score was anticorrelated with the FNC of the aDMN-SMN (r = -0.67, p = 0.0022), which was markedly different in the good and bad response groups treated with rTMS (p = 0.0115). Based on the vertex suppression by rTMS, it is possible to achieve temporary clinical efficacy by modulating network reorganization in the DMN and SMN for patients with refractory epilepsy.

Project description:BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is widely used in both research and clinical settings to modulate human brain function and behavior through the engagement of the mechanisms of plasticity. Based upon experiments using single-pulse TMS as a probe, the physiologic mechanism of these effects is often assumed to be via changes in cortical excitability, with 10 Hz rTMS increasing and 1 Hz rTMS decreasing the excitability of the stimulated region. However, the reliability and reproducibility of these rTMS protocols on cortical excitability across and within individual subjects, particularly in comparison to robust sham stimulation, have not been systematically examined.ObjectivesIn a cohort of 28 subjects (39 ± 16 years), we report the first comprehensive study to (1) assess the neuromodulatory effects of traditional 1 Hz and 10 Hz rTMS on corticospinal excitability against both a robust sham control, and two other widely used patterned rTMS protocols (intermittent theta burst stimulation, iTBS; and continuous theta burst stimulation, cTBS), and (2) determine the reproducibility of all rTMS protocols across identical repeat sessions.ResultsAt the group level, neither 1 Hz nor 10 Hz rTMS significantly modulated corticospinal excitability. 1 Hz and 10 Hz rTMS were also not significantly different from sham and both TBS protocols. Reproducibility was poor for all rTMS protocols except for sham. Importantly, none of the real rTMS and TBS protocols demonstrated greater neuromodulatory effects or reproducibility after controlling for potential experimental factors including baseline corticospinal excitability, TMS coil deviation and the number of individual MEP trials.ConclusionsThese results call into question the effectiveness and reproducibility of widely used rTMS techniques for modulating corticospinal excitability, and suggest the need for a fundamental rethinking regarding the potential mechanisms by which rTMS affects brain function and behavior in humans.