Effectiveness and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with post-stroke motor dysfunction: A meta-analysis
10.3969/j.issn.1672-5921.2012.06.002
- Author:
Fang YANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Neurology
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Meta-analysis;
Motor dysfunction;
Randomized controlled trials as topic;
Rehabilitation;
Stroke;
Transcranial magnetic stimulation;
Treatment outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Cerebrovascular Diseases
2012;9(6):284-290
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of high- and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of post-stroke motor dysfunction. Methods: The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of post-stroke motor dysfunction treated by rTMS were searched on Pubmed, EMbase, MEDLININE, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database on disc (CBMdisc) from January 2001 to December 2011. Meta-analysis was conducted for the literatures met the inclusion criteria. Results: A total of 10 RCTs and 496 patients were included, 273 patients were treated with rTMS, 223 were treated with placebo rTMS or used as blank controls. Eight of the RCTs were effectiveness studies, 2 were safety studies. Circled digit oneSix RCTs evaluated with Barthel Index (BI) showed that motor function improvement in the rTMS group was better than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant. The mean difference (MD) of the score was -11.17 (95% CI -13.84 to -8.50) before and after treatment. Three RCTs showed that the improvement of Fugl-Meyer score in the rTMS group was better than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (MD = -7.61, 95% CI - 10.79 to -4.43). Circled digit twoThe results of 4 RCTs using the low frequency rTMS (1 Hz) showed that the improvement of BI in the rTMS group was better than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (MD = -9.28, 95% CI -10.32 to -8.24); 2 RCTs using high frequency rTMS (1 Hz) also showed that the improvement of BI in the rTMs group was better than that in the control group (MD = -21.42, 95% CI -29.69 to -13.15). Circled digit threeTwo RCTs for adverse reactions showed that there was no difference between the rTMs group and the control group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.75, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.36). The main adverse events reported in the 2 RCTs were headache, anxiety, weakness, and tingling. There were no seizures. Conclusion: Both low- and high-frequency rTMS may promote the recovery of motor function for patients with post-stroke motor dysfunction, both of them are safe and effective.
