Suppr超能文献

电刺激和磁刺激对中风后上肢功能的影响:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析

Effects of electrical and magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function after stroke: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

作者信息

Keesukphan Apisara, Suntipap Monchai, Thadanipon Kunlawat, Boonmanunt Suparee, Numthavaj Pawin, McKay Gareth J, Attia John, Thakkinstian Ammarin

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

出版信息

PM R. 2025 Aug;17(8):978-993. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.13356. Epub 2025 May 21.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To pool and rank the efficacy of various stimulation therapies, including repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and combinations of these interventions on upper extremity function, activities of daily living (ADL), and spasticity after stroke relative to sham/conventional rehabilitation.

LITERATURE SURVEY

MEDLINE, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to July 2022.

METHODOLOGY

Randomized controlled trials comparing any of the interventions mentioned above (rPMS, NMES, FES, TMS, NMES+rPMS, NMES+TMS, FES+TMS, and conventional rehabilitation) on upper extremity function, ADL, or spasticity from five databases were systematically reviewed and collected. Two-stage network meta-analysis was applied.

SYNTHESIS

Thirty-four studies involving 1476 patients reporting upper extremity function with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment were pooled. NMES combined with rPMS, NMES, NMES combined with TMS, TMS, and FES showed significantly higher improvement than conventional rehabilitation, with pooled mean differences (95% confidence intervals) of 14.69 (9.94-19.45), 9.09 (6.01-12.18), 6.10 (2.51-9.69), 4.07 (0.33-7.81), and 3.61 (0.14-7.07) respectively. NMES combined with rPMS had the highest probability for improving upper extremity function. NMES plus TMS had the highest probability for improving ADL, but none of the interventions showed significant differences in spasticity.

CONCLUSIONS

NMES plus rPMS might be the best intervention to improve upper extremity functions, with NMES plus TMS most likely to lead to improved ADL but the quality of the evidence is low.

摘要

目的

汇总并排序各种刺激疗法的疗效,包括重复外周磁刺激(rPMS)、神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)、功能性电刺激(FES)、经颅磁刺激(TMS),以及这些干预措施的组合对中风后上肢功能、日常生活活动(ADL)和痉挛的影响,并与假刺激/传统康复进行比较。

文献调查

检索了MEDLINE、Scopus、物理治疗证据数据库、Cochrane临床对照试验中央注册库和谷歌学术,检索时间从建库至2022年7月。

方法

系统回顾并收集了来自五个数据库的比较上述任何干预措施(rPMS、NMES、FES、TMS、NMES+rPMS、NMES+TMS、FES+TMS和传统康复)对上肢功能、ADL或痉挛影响的随机对照试验。应用两阶段网络荟萃分析。

综合分析

汇总了34项涉及1476例患者的研究,这些研究使用Fugl-Meyer评估法报告上肢功能。NMES联合rPMS、NMES、NMES联合TMS、TMS和FES显示出比传统康复有显著更高的改善,合并平均差异(95%置信区间)分别为14.69(9.94-19.45)、9.09(6.01-12.18)、6.10(2.51-9.69)、4.07(0.33-7.81)和3.61(0.14-7.07)。NMES联合rPMS改善上肢功能的概率最高。NMES加TMS改善ADL的概率最高,但没有一种干预措施在痉挛方面显示出显著差异。

结论

NMES加rPMS可能是改善上肢功能的最佳干预措施,NMES加TMS最有可能改善ADL,但证据质量较低。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7d6d/12345400/ad6e23d013d9/PMRJ-17-978-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验