Suppr超能文献

重复经颅磁刺激作为痉挛性脑卒中的替代治疗方法:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for stroke with spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China.

出版信息

J Neurol. 2021 Nov;268(11):4013-4022. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-10058-4. Epub 2020 Jul 11.

Abstract

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) can be used to manage post-stroke spasticity, but a meta-analysis of the recent randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. Our aim is to perform a meta-analysis of the RCTs that investigated the efficacy of rTMS in patients with post-stroke spasticity. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible papers published up to February 2020. The primary outcome was the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), measured as the effect of rTMS compared with controls and after rTMS (using a change score calculated separately in the active and sham treatment groups). Finally, five papers and eight data sets were included. rTMS had no significant benefit on MAS in patients with post-stroke spasticity compared to sham treatment (WMD = - 0.29, 95% CI - 0.58, 0.00; P = 0.051). When analyzing the change score in the treatment groups, a significant effect of rTMS was observed (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.51, - 0.04; P = 0.024). When analyzing the change score in the sham treatment groups, no significant effect of sham treatment was observed, indicating no placebo effect (WMD = 0.32, 95% CI: - 0.40, 1.04; P = 0.387). We included the sample size, year of publication, percentage of male patients, and age difference in each study as covariates, and performed a meta-regression. The results showed no association between these variables and the MAS. Compared with sham stimulation, rTMS did not show a significant reduction in MAS for the patients who experienced post-stroke spasticity, but the patients reported a better outcome in MAS on a before-after scenario.

摘要

重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)和间歇性经颅磁刺激(iTBS)可用于治疗脑卒中后痉挛,但缺乏对近期随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析。我们旨在对 rTMS 治疗脑卒中后痉挛的 RCT 进行荟萃分析。检索了截至 2020 年 2 月发表的 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库中的合格论文。主要结局是改良 Ashworth 量表(MAS),与对照组和 rTMS 后(分别在活性和假刺激治疗组中单独计算变化评分)比较 rTMS 的效果。最终纳入了 5 篇论文和 8 个数据集。与假刺激治疗相比,rTMS 对脑卒中后痉挛患者的 MAS 无显著改善(WMD=-0.29,95%CI-0.58,0.00;P=0.051)。当分析治疗组的变化评分时,观察到 rTMS 的显著效果(WMD=-0.27,95%CI-0.51,-0.04;P=0.024)。当分析假刺激治疗组的变化评分时,未观察到假刺激治疗的显著效果,表明无安慰剂效应(WMD=0.32,95%CI:-0.40,1.04;P=0.387)。我们将每个研究中的样本量、发表年份、男性患者比例和年龄差异作为协变量纳入,进行了荟萃回归分析。结果显示,这些变量与 MAS 之间无关联。与假刺激相比,rTMS 并未显著降低脑卒中后痉挛患者的 MAS,但患者在前后场景下 MAS 报告的结果更好。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验