You Y, Li Y, Zhang Y, Fan H, Gao Q, Wang L. Long-term effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with speech language therapy (SLT) on post-stroke aphasia patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
NeuroRehabilitation 2023;
53:285-296. [PMID:
37781820 DOI:
10.3233/nre-230099]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation tool for improving language performance in patients with aphasia after stroke. However, it remains unclear whether it has long-term effects. After consulting a large number of relevant studies, it was found that there are no definitive conclusions about the long-term effects of tDCS on post-stroke aphasia patients.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether tDCS has long-term effects on post-stroke aphasia patients (PAPs) and which type of tDCS has the most beneficial treatment effects on language performance (especially naming ability).
METHODS
A network meta-analysis was conducted by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until April 2023 in the following databases: Web of Science, Embase, Medline (from OVID and PubMed), PsycInfo and PsycARTICLES (from OVID). We only included RCTs published in English. PAPs treated by tDCS combined with speech-language therapy were selected. Sham tDCS was the control group. Naming ability or other language performance must be assessed at follow-up states. Two reviewers independently used checklists to assess the primary outcome (the long-term effects on naming ability) and the secondary outcome (other language performance, such as communication). Cochrane Collaboration guidelines were used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Seven studies with 249 patients were included for data synthesis. For primary outcomes (naming nous), there was no obvious evidence to show a difference between interventions (C-tDCS vs. S-tDCS SMD = 0.06, 95% CI = -1.01, 1.12; A-tDCS vs. S-tDCS SMD = 0.00, 95% CI = -0.66, 0.65; D-tDCS vs. S-tDCS SMD = 0.77, 95% CI = -0.71, 2.24; A-tDCS vs. C-tDCS SMD = -0.06, 95% CI = -1.31,1.19; D-tDCS vs. C-tDCS SMD = 0.71, 95% CI = -1.11,2.53; D-tDCS vs. A-tDCS SMD = 0.77, 95% CI = -0.84, 2.39). In addition, no evidence showed differences in communication ability (C-tDCS vs. S-tDCS SMD = 0.08 95% CI = -1.77, 1.92; A-tDCS vs. S-tDCS SMD = 1.23 95% CI = -1.89, 4.34; D-tDCS vs. S-tDCS SMD = 0.70; 95% CI = -1.93, 3.34; A-tDCS vs. C-tDCS SMD = 1.15 95% CI = -2.48, 4.77; D-tDCS vs. C-tDCS SMD = 0.62 95% CI = -2.59, 3.84; D-tDCS vs. A-tDCS SMD = -0.52 95% CI = -4.60, 3.56).
CONCLUSION
It seems that tDCS has no long-term effects on post-stroke aphasia patients in naming nouns and communication in terms of the results of our network meta-analysis. However, the results should be interpreted with caution. In the future, more RCTs with long follow-up times should be included in the research to conduct subgroup or meta-regression analyses to obtain a sufficient effect size.
Collapse