scholarly journals Effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation in the treatment of anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis of sham or behaviour-controlled studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. E592-E614
Author(s):  
Alessandra Vergallito ◽  
Alessia Gallucci ◽  
Alberto Pisoni ◽  
Mariacristina Punzi ◽  
Gabriele Caselli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation

scholarly journals Noninvasive brain stimulation combined with exercise in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 401-412
Author(s):  
Alejandra Cardenas-Rojas ◽  
Kevin Pacheco-Barrios ◽  
Stefano Giannoni-Luza ◽  
Oscar Rivera-Torrejon ◽  
Felipe Fregni
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation

Noninvasive brain stimulation for patients with a disorder of consciousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (8) ◽  
pp. 905-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Feng ◽  
Jiaqi Zhang ◽  
Yi Zhou ◽  
Zhongfei Bai ◽  
Ying Yin
Keyword(s):  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Minimally Conscious State ◽  
Conscious State ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation ◽  
Disorder Of Consciousness ◽  
Left Dlpfc ◽  
Dorsolateral Prefrontal ◽  
Minimally Conscious

AbstractNoninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been used to facilitate the recovery from prolonged unconsciousness as a result of brain injury. The aim of this study is to systematically assess the effects of NIBS in patients with a disorder of consciousness (DOC). We searched four databases for any randomized controlled trials on the effect of NIBS in patients with a DOC, which used the JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) as the primary outcome measure. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool effect sizes. Fourteen studies with 273 participants were included in this review, of which 12 studies with sufficient data were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed a significant effect on increasing CRS-R scores in favor of real stimulation as compared to sham (Hedges’ g = 0.522; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.318–0.726; P < 0.0001, I2 = 0.00%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that only anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) significantly enhances the CRS-R scores in patients with a DOC, as compared to sham (Hedges’ g = 0.703; 95% CI, 0.419–0.986; P < 0.001), and this effect was predominant in patients in a minimally conscious state (MCS) (Hedges’ g = 0.815; 95% CI, 0.429–1.200; P < 0.001). Anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC appears to be an effective approach for patients with MCS.

Noninvasive brain stimulation for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 1336-1345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara M. Vacas ◽  
Florindo Stella ◽  
Julia C. Loureiro ◽  
Frederico Simões do Couto ◽  
Albino J. Oliveira-Maia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Psychological Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation ◽  
Behavioural And Psychological Symptoms

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Improves Hemispatial Neglect After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-366.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Paula S. Salazar ◽  
Patrícia G. Vaz ◽  
Ritchele R. Marchese ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Camila Pinto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hemispatial Neglect ◽  
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation

scholarly journals Locations for noninvasive brain stimulation in treating depressive disorders: A combination of meta-analysis and resting-state functional connectivity analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 582-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Binlong Zhang ◽  
Jiao Liu ◽  
Tuya Bao ◽  
Georgia Wilson ◽  
Joel Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Functional Connectivity ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Resting State Functional Connectivity ◽  
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Surface ◽  
Dorsolateral Prefrontal

Objective: Many noninvasive brain stimulation techniques have been applied to treat depressive disorders. However, the target brain region in most noninvasive brain stimulation studies is the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Exploring new stimulation locations may improve the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation for depressive disorders. We aimed to explore potential noninvasive brain stimulation locations for depressive disorders through a meta-analysis and a functional connectivity approach. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of 395 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies to identify depressive disorder–associated brain regions as regions of interest. Then, we ran resting-state functional connectivity analysis with three different pipelines in 40 depression patients to find brain surface regions correlated with these regions of interest. The 10–20 system coordinates corresponding to these brain surface regions were considered as potential locations for noninvasive brain stimulation. Results: The 10–20 system coordinates corresponding to the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, bilateral inferior frontal gyrus, medial prefrontal cortex, supplementary motor area, bilateral supramarginal gyrus, bilateral primary motor cortex, bilateral operculum, left angular gyrus and right middle temporal gyrus were identified as potential locations for noninvasive brain stimulation in depressive disorders. The coordinates were: posterior to F3, posterior to F4, superior to F3, posterior to F7, anterior to C4, P3, midpoint of F7–T3, posterior to F8, anterior to C3, midpoint of Fz–Cz, midpoint of Fz–Fp1, anterior to T4, midpoint of C3–P3, and anterior to C4. Conclusion: Our study identified several potential noninvasive brain stimulation locations for depressive disorders, which may serve as a basis for future clinical investigations.

How different priming stimulations affect the corticospinal excitability induced by noninvasive brain stimulation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 883-899 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Hassanzahraee ◽  
Maryam Zoghi ◽  
Shapour Jaberzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Synaptic Activity ◽  
Prior History ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation

Abstract Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques could induce changes in corticospinal excitability (CSE) and neuroplasticity. These changes could be affected by different factors, including having a session of stimulation called the ‘priming’ protocol before the main stimulation session called the ‘test’ protocol. Literature indicates that a priming protocol could affect the activity of postsynaptic neurons, form a neuronal history, and then modify the expected effects of the test protocol on CSE indicated by the amplitude of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor-evoked potentials. This prior history affects a threshold to activate the necessary mechanism stabilizing the neuronal activity within a useful dynamic range. For studying the effects of this history and related metaplasticity mechanisms in the human primary motor cortex (M1), priming-test protocols are successfully employed. Thirty-two studies were included in this review to investigate how different priming protocols could affect the induced effects of a test protocol on CSE in healthy individuals. The results showed that if the history of synaptic activity were high or low enough to displace the threshold, the expected effects of the test protocol would be the reverse. This effect reversal is regulated by homeostatic mechanisms. On the contrary, the effects of the test protocol would not be the reverse, and at most we experience a prolongation of the lasting effects if the aforementioned history is not enough to displace the threshold. This effect prolongation is mediated by nonhomeostatic mechanisms. Therefore, based on the characteristics of priming-test protocols and the interval between them, the expected results of priming-test protocols would be different. Moreover, these findings could shed light on the different mechanisms of metaplasticity involved in NIBS. It helps us understand how we can improve the expected outcomes of these techniques in clinical approaches.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Lingling Li ◽  
Hailiang Huang ◽  
Yuqi Jia ◽  
Ying Yu ◽  
Zhiyao Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Standard Mean Difference ◽  
Swallowing Dysfunction

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document