Noninvasive neuromodulation for unilateral neglect after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Theta burst stimulation: what role does it play in stroke rehabilitation? A systematic review of the existing evidence

Various post-stroke dysfunctions often result in poor long-term outcomes for stroke survivors, but the effect of conventional treatments is limited. In recent years, lots of studies have confirmed the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in stroke rehabilitation. As a new pattern of rTMS, theta burst stimulation (TBS) was proved recently to yield more pronounced and long-lasting after-effects than the conventional pattern at a shorter stimulation duration. To explore the role of TBS in stroke rehabilitation, this review summarizes the existing evidence from all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so far on the efficacy of TBS applied to different post-stroke dysfunctions, including cognitive impairment, visuospatial neglect, aphasia, dysphagia, spasticity, and motor dysfunction. Overall, TBS promotes the progress of stroke rehabilitation and may serve as a preferable alternative to traditional rTMS. However, it's hard to recommend a specific paradigm of TBS due to the limited number of current studies and their heterogeneity. Further high-quality clinical RCTs are needed to determine the optimal technical settings and intervention time in stroke survivors.

Evidence of rTMS for Motor or Cognitive Stroke Recovery: Hype or Hope?

BACKGROUND

Evidence of efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for stroke recovery is hampered by an unexplained variability of reported effect sizes and an insufficient understanding of mechanisms of action. We aimed to (1) briefly summarize evidence of efficacy, (2) identify critical factors to explain the reported variation in effects, and (3) provide mechanism-based recommendations for future trials.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature according to Cochrane and PRISMA Protocols. We included trials with ≥10 patients per treatment group. We classified outcome measures according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Meta-analysis was done when at least 3 trials were reported on the same construct. In case of significant summary effect sizes with significant heterogeneity, we used sensitivity analyses to test for correlations and differences between found individual effect sizes and possible effect modifiers such as patient-, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation-, and trial characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 57 articles (N=2595). Funnel plots showed no publication bias. We found significant effect sizes at the level of body function (upper limb synergies, muscle strength, language functioning, global cognitive functioning, visual/spatial inattention) with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation within or beyond 3 months after stroke. We also found significant effect sizes at the level of activities. We found no subgroup differences or significant correlations between individual summary effect sizes and any tested possible effect modifier.

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation holds the potential to benefit a range of motor and cognitive outcomes after stroke, but the evidence of efficacy is challenged by unexplained heterogeneity across many small sampled trials. We propose large trials with the collection of individual patient data on baseline severity and brain network integrity with sufficiently powered subgroup analyses, as well as protocolized time-locked training of the target behavior. Additional neurophysiological and biomechanical data may help in understanding mechanisms and identifying biomarkers of treatment efficacy.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: CRD42022300330.

Recent advances in treatment of spatial neglect: networks and neuropsychology

INTRODUCTION

Spatial neglect remains an underdiagnosed and undertreated consequence of stroke that imposes significant disability. A growing appreciation of brain networks involved in spatial cognition is helping us to develop a mechanistic understanding of different therapies under development.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on neuromodulation of brain networks for the treatment of spatial neglect after stroke, using evidence-based approaches including 1) Cognitive strategies that are more likely to impact frontal lobe executive function networks; 2) Visuomotor adaptation, which may depend on the integrity of parietal and parieto- and subcortical-frontal connections and the presence of a particular subtype of neglect labeled Aiming neglect; 3) Non-invasive brain stimulation that may modulate relative levels of activity of the two hemispheres and depend on corpus callosum connectivity; and 4) Pharmacological modulation that may exert its effect primarily via right-lateralized networks more closely involved in arousal.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite promising results from individual studies, significant methodological heterogeneity between trials weakened conclusions drawn from meta-analyses. Improved classification of spatial neglect subtypes will benefit research and clinical care. Understanding the brain network mechanisms of different treatments and different types of spatial neglect will make possible a precision medicine treatment approach.

Unilateral Spatial Neglect Recovery Poststroke

Unilateral spatial neglect (USN) is a common and disabling cognitive consequence of stroke wherein individuals demonstrate decreased response to contralesional information. Here, we provide an updated narrative review of studies that shed light on the neural mechanisms and predictors of recovery of USN. Additionally, we report a rapid review of randomized controlled trials focusing on USN intervention, both nonpharmacological and pharmacological, published in the last 5 years. Randomized controlled trials are reviewed within the context of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of USN interventions published within the same time frame. The quality of randomized controlled trials of treatment is higher compared to quality reported in previous reviews and meta-analyses. However, remaining weaknesses in participant demographic reporting, as well as small, heterogenous samples, render generalizability and cross-study interpretation a challenge. Nevertheless, evidence regarding neural mechanisms underlying USN recovery and regarding the effectiveness of targeted USN interventions is accumulating and strengthening, setting the foundation for future investigations into patient-specific factors that may influence treatment response. We identify gaps and provide suggestions for future USN intervention research.