A network meta-analysis of non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for autism spectrum disorder: Evidence from randomized controlled trials

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Pub Date : 2024-07-07 DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105807
{"title":"A network meta-analysis of non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for autism spectrum disorder: Evidence from randomized controlled trials","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The efficacy and acceptability of various non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) interventions for autism spectrum disorder remain unclear. We carried out a systematic review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding NIBS for reducing autistic symptoms (INPLASY202370003). Sixteen articles (N = 709) met the inclusion criteria for network meta-analysis. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Fourteen active NIBS interventions, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcranial pulse stimulation were analyzed. Only anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex paired with cathodal tDCS over an extracephalic location (atDCS_F3 + ctDCS_E) significantly improved autistic symptoms compared to sham controls (SMD = − 1.40, 95 %CIs = − 2.67 to − 0.14). None of the NIBS interventions markedly improved social-communication symptoms or restricted/repetitive behaviors in autistic participants. Moreover, no active NIBS interventions exhibited significant dropout rate differences compared to sham controls, and no serious adverse events were reported for any intervention.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56105,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763424002768/pdfft?md5=d44416a61b467109e0446a0f14f49948&pid=1-s2.0-S0149763424002768-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763424002768","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The efficacy and acceptability of various non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) interventions for autism spectrum disorder remain unclear. We carried out a systematic review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding NIBS for reducing autistic symptoms (INPLASY202370003). Sixteen articles (N = 709) met the inclusion criteria for network meta-analysis. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Fourteen active NIBS interventions, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcranial pulse stimulation were analyzed. Only anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex paired with cathodal tDCS over an extracephalic location (atDCS_F3 + ctDCS_E) significantly improved autistic symptoms compared to sham controls (SMD = − 1.40, 95 %CIs = − 2.67 to − 0.14). None of the NIBS interventions markedly improved social-communication symptoms or restricted/repetitive behaviors in autistic participants. Moreover, no active NIBS interventions exhibited significant dropout rate differences compared to sham controls, and no serious adverse events were reported for any intervention.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自闭症谱系障碍非侵入性脑部刺激干预的网络荟萃分析:来自随机对照试验的证据。
各种非侵入性脑刺激(NIBS)干预措施对自闭症谱系障碍的疗效和可接受性仍不明确。我们对有关减少自闭症症状的 NIBS 的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统综述(INPLASY202370003)。16篇文章(N = 709)符合网络荟萃分析的纳入标准。疗效大小以标准化均值差异 (SMD) 或几率比率及 95% 置信区间 (CI) 的形式报告。研究分析了 14 项积极的 NIBS 干预措施,包括经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)、重复经颅磁刺激和经颅脉冲刺激。与假对照组相比,只有左侧背外侧前额叶皮层的阳极 tDCS 与脑外位置的阴极 tDCS(atDCS_F3+ctDCS_E)配对能显著改善自闭症症状(SMD = -1.40, 95%CIs = -2.67 to -0.14)。没有任何一种 NIBS 干预能明显改善自闭症参与者的社会交流症状或受限/重复行为。此外,与假对照组相比,积极的 NIBS 干预措施都没有表现出明显的辍学率差异,而且没有任何干预措施出现严重不良事件的报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
466
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society publishes original and significant review articles that explore the intersection between neuroscience and the study of psychological processes and behavior. The journal also welcomes articles that primarily focus on psychological processes and behavior, as long as they have relevance to one or more areas of neuroscience.
期刊最新文献
Reconceptualizing Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Predictive Processing Framework for Mechanisms and Intervention Mitochondrial dynamics and psychiatric disorders: The missing link ElectroRetinoGraphy toward an exploration of the therapeutic potential of antidepressants in patients with major depressive disorder: a scoping review of the literature Microglia Signaling in Health and Disease – Implications in Sex-Specific Brain Development and Plasticity Common and separable neural alterations in adult and adolescent depression – evidence from neuroimaging meta-analyses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1