Assessment of noninvasive brain stimulation interventions in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to compare and rank the effectiveness of various noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) for Parkinson's disease (PD). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed) databases from the date of database inception to April 30th, 2024. Two researchers independently screened studies of NIBS treatment in patients with PD based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two researchers independently performed data extraction of the included studies using an Excel spreadsheet and assessed the quality of the literature according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (RoB2). Network meta-analysis was performed in StataMP 17.0. A total of 28 studies involving 1628 PD patients were included. The results showed that HF-rTMS over the SMA (SMD = - 2.01; 95% CI [- 2.87, - 1.15]), HF-rTMS over the M1 and DLPFC (SMD = - 1.80; 95% CI [- 2.90, - 0.70]), HF-rTMS over the M1 (SMD = - 1.10; 95% CI [- 1.55, - 0.65]), a-tDCS over the DLPFC (SMD = - 1.08; 95% CI [- 1.90, - 0.27]), HF-rTMS over the M1 and PFC (SMD = - 0.92; 95% CI [- 1.71, - 0.14]), LF-rTMS over the M1 (SMD = - 0.72; 95% CI [- 1.17, - 0.28]), and HF-rTMS over the DLPFC (SMD = - 0.70; 95% CI [- 1.21, - 0.19]) were significantly improved motor function compared with sham stimulation. The SUCRA three highest ranked were HF-rTMS over the SMA (95.1%), HF-rTMS over the M1 and DLPFC (89.6%), and HF-rTMS over the M1 (73.0%). In terms of enhanced cognitive function, HF-rTMS over the DLPFC (SMD = 0.80; 95% CI [0.03,1.56]) was significantly better than sham stimulation. The SUCRA three most highly ranked were a-tDCS over the M1 (69.8%), c-tDCS over the DLPFC (66.9%), and iTBS over the DLPFC (65.3%). HF-rTMS over the M1 (SMD = - 1.43; 95% CI [- 2.26, - 0.61]) and HF-rTMS over the DLPFC (SMD = - 0.79; 95% CI [- 1.45, - 0.12)]) significantly improved depression. The SUCRA three highest ranked were HF-rTMS over the M1 (94.1%), LF-rTMS over the M1 (71.8%), and HF-rTMS over the DLPFC (69.0%). HF-rTMS over the SMA may be the best option for improving motor symptoms in PD patients. a-tDCS and HF-rTMS over the M1 may be the NIBS with the most significant effects on cognition and depression, separately.Trial registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Review, PROSPERO (CRD42023456088).

Wang Y ，Ding Y ，Guo C 《Scientific Reports》

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults.

The estimated lifetime prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults worldwide has been estimated at 3.9%. PTSD appears to contribute to alterations in neuronal network connectivity patterns. Current pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments for PTSD are associated with inadequate symptom improvement and high dropout rates. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive therapy involving induction of electrical currents in cortical brain tissue, may be an important treatment option for PTSD to improve remission rates and for people who cannot tolerate existing treatments. To assess the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults. We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two clinical trials registers. We checked reference lists of relevant articles. The most recent search was January 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of rTMS versus sham rTMS for PTSD in adults from any treatment setting, including veterans. Eligible trials employed at least five rTMS treatment sessions with both active and sham conditions. We included trials with combination interventions, where a pharmacological agent or psychotherapy was combined with rTMS for both intervention and control groups. We included studies meeting the above criteria regardless of whether they reported any of our outcomes of interest. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in accordance with Cochrane standards. Primary outcomes were PTSD severity immediately after treatment and serious adverse events during active treatment. Secondary outcomes were PTSD remission, PTSD response, PTSD severity at two follow-up time points after treatment, dropouts, and depression and anxiety severity immediately after treatment. We included 13 RCTs in the review (12 published; 1 unpublished dissertation), with 577 participants. Eight studies included stand-alone rTMS treatment, four combined rTMS with an evidence-based psychotherapeutic treatment, and one investigated rTMS as an adjunctive to treatment-as-usual. Five studies were conducted in the USA, and some predominantly included white, male veterans. Active rTMS probably makes little to no difference to PTSD severity immediately following treatment (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.54 to 0.27; 3 studies, 99 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence by one level for imprecision (sample size insufficient to detect a difference of medium effect size). We deemed one study as having a low risk of bias and the remaining two as having 'some concerns' for risk of bias. A sensitivity analysis of change-from-baseline scores enabled inclusion of a greater number of studies (6 studies, 252 participants). This analysis yielded a similar outcome to our main analysis but also indicated significant heterogeneity in efficacy across studies, including two studies with a high risk of bias. Reported rates of serious adverse events were low, with seven reported (active rTMS: 6; sham rTMS: 1). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of active rTMS on serious adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 5.26, 95% CI 0.26 to 107.81; 5 studies, 251 participants; very low-certainty evidence [Active rTMS: 23/1000, sham rTMS: 4/1000]). We downgraded the evidence by one level for risk of bias and two levels for imprecision. We rated four of five studies as having a high risk of bias, and the fifth as 'some concerns' for bias. We were unable to assess PTSD remission immediately after treatment as none of the included studies reported this outcome. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our review suggests that active rTMS probably makes little to no difference to PTSD severity immediately following treatment compared to sham stimulation. However, significant heterogeneity in efficacy was detected when we included a larger number of studies in sensitivity analysis. We observed considerable variety in participant and protocol characteristics across studies included in this review. For example, studies tended to be weighted towards inclusion of either male veterans or female civilians. Studies varied greatly in terms of the proportion of the sample with comorbid depression. Study protocols differed in treatment design and stimulation parameters (e.g. session number/duration, treatment course length, stimulation intensity/frequency, location of stimulation). These differences may affect efficacy, particularly when considering interactions with participant factors. Reported rates of serious adverse events were very low (< 1%) across active and sham conditions. It is uncertain whether rTMS increases the risk of serious adverse event occurrence, as our certainty of evidence was very low. Studies frequently lacked clear definitions for serious adverse events, as well as detail on tracking/assessment of data and information on the safety population. Increased reporting on these elements would likely aid the advancement of both research and clinical recommendations of rTMS for PTSD. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to meta-analyze PTSD remission, PTSD treatment response, and PTSD severity at different periods post-treatment. Further research into these outcomes could inform the clinical use of rTMS. Additionally, the relatively large contribution of data from trials that focused on white male veterans may limit the generalizability of our conclusions. This could be addressed by prioritizing recruitment of more diverse participant samples.

Brown R ，Cherian K ，Jones K ，Wickham R ，Gomez R ，Sahlem G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Examining the effectiveness of motor imagery combined with non-invasive brain stimulation for upper limb recovery in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are common non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methods for functional recovery after stroke. Motor imagery (MI) can be used in the rehabilitation of limb motor function after stroke, but its effectiveness remains to be rigorously established. Furthermore, there is a growing interest in the combined application of NIBS with MI, yet the evidence regarding its impact on the recovery of upper limb function after stroke is inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to demonstrate whether combining the two is superior to NIBS alone or MI alone to provide a reference for clinical decision-making. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Science Direct, CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on the effects of MI combined NIBS in motor function recovery after stroke until February 2024. The outcomes of interest were associated with body functions or structure (impairment) and activity (functional). The primary outcome was assessed with the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity (FMA-UE) for motor function of the upper limbs and the modified Barthel Index (MBI) for the ability to perform daily living activities. For secondary outcomes, functional activity level was measured using wolf motor function test (WMFT) and action research arm test (ARAT), and cortical excitability was assessed using cortical latency of motor evoked potential (MEP-CL) and central motor conduction time (CMCT). The methodological quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the evidence‑based Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the mean differences (MD) or the standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with random-effect models. A total of 14 articles, including 886 patients, were reviewed in the meta-analysis. In comparison with MI or NIBS alone, the combined therapy significantly improved the motor function of the upper limbs (MD = 5.43; 95% CI 4.34-6.53; P < 0.00001) and the ability to perform activities of daily living (MD = 11.07; 95% CI 6.33-15.80; P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses showed an interaction between the stage of stroke, the type of MI, and the type of NIBS with the effect of the combination therapy. The combination of MI and NIBS may be a promising therapeutic approach to enhance upper limb motor function, functional activity, and activities of daily living after stroke. PROSPERO registration CRD42023493073.

Zhang W ，Li W ，Liu X ，Zhao Q ，Gao M ，Li Z ，Lv P ，Yin Y ... -  《Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation》

Pharmacological treatments in panic disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.

A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines. To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo. Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses. Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low. In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.

Guaiana G ，Meader N ，Barbui C ，Davies SJ ，Furukawa TA ，Imai H ，Dias S ，Caldwell DM ，Koesters M ，Tajika A ，Bighelli I ，Pompoli A ，Cipriani A ，Dawson S ，Robertson L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》