Ye Liu, Yiming Ma, Jing Zhang, Xuejing Yan, Yi Ouyang
{"title":"Effects of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Hereditary Ataxia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ye Liu, Yiming Ma, Jing Zhang, Xuejing Yan, Yi Ouyang","doi":"10.1007/s12311-023-01638-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Numerous studies have demonstrated the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques as a viable treatment option for cerebellar ataxia. However, there is a notable dearth of research investigating the efficacy of NIBS specifically for hereditary ataxia (HA), a distinct subgroup within the broader category of cerebellar ataxia. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis in order to assess the efficacy of various NIBS methods for the treatment of HA. A thorough review of the literature was conducted, encompassing both English and Chinese articles, across eight electrical databases. The focus was on original articles investigating the therapeutic effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation for hereditary ataxia, with a publication date prior to March 2023. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed specifically on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that fulfilled the eligibility criteria, taking into account the various modalities of non-invasive brain stimulation. A meta-analysis was conducted, comprising five RCTs, which utilized the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) as the outcome measure to evaluate the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The findings revealed a statistically significant mean decrease of 1.77 in the total SARA score following repetitive TMS (rTMS) (p=0.006). Subgroup analysis based on frequency demonstrated a mean decrease of 1.61 in the total SARA score after high-frequency rTMS (p=0.05), while no improvement effects were observed after low-frequency rTMS (p=0.48). Another meta-analysis was performed on three studies, utilizing ICARS scores, to assess the impact of rTMS. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in pooled ICARS scores between the rTMS group and the sham group (MD=0.51, 95%CI: -5.38 to 6.39; p=0.87). These findings align with the pooled results of two studies that evaluated alterations in post-intervention BBS scores (MD=0.74, 95%CI: -5.48 to 6.95; p=0.82). Despite the limited number of studies available, this systematic review and meta-analysis have revealed promising potential benefits of rTMS for hereditary ataxia. However, it is strongly recommended that further high-quality investigations be conducted in this area. Furthermore, the significance of standardized protocols for NIBS in future studies was also emphasized.</p>","PeriodicalId":50706,"journal":{"name":"Cerebellum","volume":" ","pages":"1614-1625"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cerebellum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-023-01638-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Numerous studies have demonstrated the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques as a viable treatment option for cerebellar ataxia. However, there is a notable dearth of research investigating the efficacy of NIBS specifically for hereditary ataxia (HA), a distinct subgroup within the broader category of cerebellar ataxia. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis in order to assess the efficacy of various NIBS methods for the treatment of HA. A thorough review of the literature was conducted, encompassing both English and Chinese articles, across eight electrical databases. The focus was on original articles investigating the therapeutic effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation for hereditary ataxia, with a publication date prior to March 2023. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed specifically on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that fulfilled the eligibility criteria, taking into account the various modalities of non-invasive brain stimulation. A meta-analysis was conducted, comprising five RCTs, which utilized the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) as the outcome measure to evaluate the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The findings revealed a statistically significant mean decrease of 1.77 in the total SARA score following repetitive TMS (rTMS) (p=0.006). Subgroup analysis based on frequency demonstrated a mean decrease of 1.61 in the total SARA score after high-frequency rTMS (p=0.05), while no improvement effects were observed after low-frequency rTMS (p=0.48). Another meta-analysis was performed on three studies, utilizing ICARS scores, to assess the impact of rTMS. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in pooled ICARS scores between the rTMS group and the sham group (MD=0.51, 95%CI: -5.38 to 6.39; p=0.87). These findings align with the pooled results of two studies that evaluated alterations in post-intervention BBS scores (MD=0.74, 95%CI: -5.48 to 6.95; p=0.82). Despite the limited number of studies available, this systematic review and meta-analysis have revealed promising potential benefits of rTMS for hereditary ataxia. However, it is strongly recommended that further high-quality investigations be conducted in this area. Furthermore, the significance of standardized protocols for NIBS in future studies was also emphasized.
期刊介绍:
Official publication of the Society for Research on the Cerebellum devoted to genetics of cerebellar ataxias, role of cerebellum in motor control and cognitive function, and amid an ageing population, diseases associated with cerebellar dysfunction.
The Cerebellum is a central source for the latest developments in fundamental neurosciences including molecular and cellular biology; behavioural neurosciences and neurochemistry; genetics; fundamental and clinical neurophysiology; neurology and neuropathology; cognition and neuroimaging.
The Cerebellum benefits neuroscientists in molecular and cellular biology; neurophysiologists; researchers in neurotransmission; neurologists; radiologists; paediatricians; neuropsychologists; students of neurology and psychiatry and others.