Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2021
Non-invasive brain stimulation for treating neurogenic dysarthria: A systematic review.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Balzan Pasquale, Tattersall Catherine, Palmer Rebecca
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although non-invasive central and peripheral stimulations are accruing support as promising treatments in different neurological conditions, their effects on dysarthria have not been systematically investigated.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to examine the evidence base of non-invasive stimulation for treating dysarthria, identify which stimulation parameters have the most potential for treatment and determine safety risks.
METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis, when possible, involving publications indexed in MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE CINHAL the Linguistics and Language Behavioral Abstracts, Web of Science, Cochrane Register of Control Trials and 2 trial registries was completed. Articles were searched in December 2018 and updated in June 2021 using keywords related to brain and electrical stimulation, dysarthria and research design. We included trials with randomised, cross-over or quasi-experimental designs; involving a control group; and investigating treatment of neurogenic dysarthria with non-invasive stimulation. Methodological quality was determined with the Cochrane's Risk of Bias-2 tool.
RESULTS: In total, 6186 studies were identified; 10 studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 cross-over studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All 10 trials (268 adults with Parkinson's disease, stroke and neurodegenerative cerebellar ataxia) focused on brain stimulation (6 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; 3 transcranial direct current stimulation; and 1 repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation). Adjunct speech-language therapy was delivered in 2 trials. Most trials reported one or more positive effects of stimulation on dysarthria-related features; however, given the overall high risk of bias and heterogeneity in participant, trial and outcome measurement characteristics, no conclusions can be drawn. Post-treatment size effects for 2 stroke trials demonstrated no statistically significant differences between active and sham stimulation across 3 dysarthria outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for use of non-invasive brain stimulation in treating dysarthria remains inconclusive. Research trials that provide reliable and replicable findings are required.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to examine the evidence base of non-invasive stimulation for treating dysarthria, identify which stimulation parameters have the most potential for treatment and determine safety risks.
METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis, when possible, involving publications indexed in MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE CINHAL the Linguistics and Language Behavioral Abstracts, Web of Science, Cochrane Register of Control Trials and 2 trial registries was completed. Articles were searched in December 2018 and updated in June 2021 using keywords related to brain and electrical stimulation, dysarthria and research design. We included trials with randomised, cross-over or quasi-experimental designs; involving a control group; and investigating treatment of neurogenic dysarthria with non-invasive stimulation. Methodological quality was determined with the Cochrane's Risk of Bias-2 tool.
RESULTS: In total, 6186 studies were identified; 10 studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 cross-over studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All 10 trials (268 adults with Parkinson's disease, stroke and neurodegenerative cerebellar ataxia) focused on brain stimulation (6 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; 3 transcranial direct current stimulation; and 1 repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation). Adjunct speech-language therapy was delivered in 2 trials. Most trials reported one or more positive effects of stimulation on dysarthria-related features; however, given the overall high risk of bias and heterogeneity in participant, trial and outcome measurement characteristics, no conclusions can be drawn. Post-treatment size effects for 2 stroke trials demonstrated no statistically significant differences between active and sham stimulation across 3 dysarthria outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for use of non-invasive brain stimulation in treating dysarthria remains inconclusive. Research trials that provide reliable and replicable findings are required.