4.7 Review

Non-invasive brain stimulation for fine motor improvement after stroke: a meta-analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 1017-1026

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.13643

Keywords

fine motor rehabilitation; motor recovery; non-invasive brain stimulation; stroke; transcranial stimulation

Funding

  1. Harvard Catalyst/The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center
  2. Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers
  3. Wallonie-Brussel scholarship
  4. Belgian-American Educational Foundation
  5. Leon Fredericq Foundation
  6. [1R01HD082302-01A1]
  7. [1R21HD79048-01A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to determine whether non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques improve fine motor performance in stroke. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SciELO and OpenGrey for randomized clinical trials on NIBS for fine motor performance in stroke patients and healthy participants. We computed Hedges' g for active and sham groups, pooled data as random-effects models and performed sensitivity analysis on chronicity, montage, frequency of stimulation and risk of bias. Twenty-nine studies (351 patients and 152 healthy subjects) were reviewed. Effect sizes in stroke populations for transcranial direct current stimulation and repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation were 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08-0.55; P=0.010; Tau(2), 0.09; I-2, 34%; Q, 18.23; P=0.110] and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.00-0.92; P=0.05; Tau(2), 0.38; I-2, 67%; Q, 30.45; P=0.007). The effect size of non-dominant healthy hemisphere transcranial direct current stimulation on non-dominant hand function was 1.25 (95% CI, 0.09-2.41; P=0.04; Tau(2), 1.26; I-2, 93%; Q, 40.27; P<0.001). Our results show that NIBS is associated with gains in fine motor performance in chronic stroke patients and healthy subjects. This supports the effects of NIBS on motor learning and encourages investigation to optimize their effects in clinical and research settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available