Suppr超能文献

探索经颅直流电刺激的差异效应:运动皮层与小脑刺激的比较分析

Exploring the Differential Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Comparative Analysis of Motor Cortex and Cerebellar Stimulation.

作者信息

Ul-Ain Qurat, Ilyas Saad, Ali Hamid, Ali Ijaz, Ullah Riaz, Arshad Hafsah, Khalid Sana, Azim Muhammad Ehab, Liu Tian, Wang Jue

机构信息

The Key Laboratory of Biomedical Information Engineering of Ministry of Education, Institute of Health and Rehabilitation Science, School of Life Science and Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, PR China.

National Engineering Research Center for Healthcare Devices Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China.

出版信息

Heliyon. 2024 Feb 23;10(6):e26838. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26838. eCollection 2024 Mar 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique. Constant electric current is passed through the patient's scalp with the aim of modulating cortical excitability. Stroke is a cerebrovascular disease characterized by hemorrhage or cerebral ischemia. This systematic review and meta-analysis are aimed at comparing the efficacy of motor cortex stimulation with that of cerebellar stimulation by using transcranial direct current stimulation.

METHOD

Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (Pedro) databases were searched for studies. The extracted qualitative data was synthesized systematically. Cochrane RevMan software was used to conduct a meta-analysis of quantitative data. The fixed effects mean difference of the collected data was calculated at a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the changes in balance and side effects.

RESULTS

This research included 10 articles with seven studies assessing changes in balance (outcome measured in CoP and FMA scores) and side effects (tingling and itching were the most prevalent). There was no significant difference between the efficacy levels of m1-tDCS versus ctDCS (P = 0.18), m1-tDCS versus sham (P = 0.92), and ctDCS versus sham (P = 0.19). Itching and tingling sensation were the most common and were significantly prevalent in sham interventions (P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

We found that motor cortex and cerebellar stimulations are both effective in improving motor function in stroke patients. There are no adverse effects to using the interventions besides mild itching and tingling experienced during the stimulation.

摘要

背景

经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)是一种非侵入性脑刺激技术。恒定电流通过患者头皮,目的是调节皮质兴奋性。中风是一种以出血或脑缺血为特征的脑血管疾病。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较经颅直流电刺激对运动皮层刺激与小脑刺激的疗效。

方法

检索谷歌学术、PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane CENTRAL和物理治疗证据数据库(Pedro)中的研究。对提取的定性数据进行系统综合。使用Cochrane RevMan软件对定量数据进行荟萃分析。计算收集数据的固定效应平均差,以95%置信区间(CI)表示平衡变化和副作用。

结果

本研究纳入10篇文章,其中7项研究评估了平衡变化(以CoP和FMA评分衡量结果)和副作用(刺痛和瘙痒最为常见)。m1-tDCS与ctDCS的疗效水平之间无显著差异(P = 0.18),m1-tDCS与假刺激之间无显著差异(P = 0.92),ctDCS与假刺激之间无显著差异(P = 0.19)。瘙痒和刺痛感最为常见,在假刺激干预中显著普遍(P < 0.00001)。

结论

我们发现运动皮层和小脑刺激在改善中风患者运动功能方面均有效。除了刺激期间出现的轻度瘙痒和刺痛外,使用这些干预措施没有不良反应。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b68/10955213/e6a94e9d91cb/gr1.jpg

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