Cargando…
Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis
Brain‐computer interfaces (BCIs) can provide sensory feedback of ongoing brain oscillations, enabling stroke survivors to modulate their sensorimotor rhythms purposefully. A number of recent clinical studies indicate that repeated use of such BCIs might trigger neurological recovery and hence improv...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5945970/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29761128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.544 |
_version_ | 1783322095359361024 |
---|---|
author | Cervera, María A. Soekadar, Surjo R. Ushiba, Junichi Millán, José del R. Liu, Meigen Birbaumer, Niels Garipelli, Gangadhar |
author_facet | Cervera, María A. Soekadar, Surjo R. Ushiba, Junichi Millán, José del R. Liu, Meigen Birbaumer, Niels Garipelli, Gangadhar |
author_sort | Cervera, María A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Brain‐computer interfaces (BCIs) can provide sensory feedback of ongoing brain oscillations, enabling stroke survivors to modulate their sensorimotor rhythms purposefully. A number of recent clinical studies indicate that repeated use of such BCIs might trigger neurological recovery and hence improvement in motor function. Here, we provide a first meta‐analysis evaluating the clinical effectiveness of BCI‐based post‐stroke motor rehabilitation. Trials were identified using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PEDro and by inspection of references in several review articles. We selected randomized controlled trials that used BCIs for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation and provided motor impairment scores before and after the intervention. A random‐effects inverse variance method was used to calculate the summary effect size. We initially identified 524 articles and, after removing duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 473 articles. We found 26 articles corresponding to BCI clinical trials, of these, there were nine studies that involved a total of 235 post‐stroke survivors that fulfilled the inclusion criterion (randomized controlled trials that examined motor performance as an outcome measure) for the meta‐analysis. Motor improvements, mostly quantified by the upper limb Fugl‐Meyer Assessment (FMA‐UE), exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID=5.25) in six BCI studies, while such improvement was reached only in three control groups. Overall, the BCI training was associated with a standardized mean difference of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.20) in FMA‐UE compared to control conditions, which is in the range of medium to large summary effect size. In addition, several studies indicated BCI‐induced functional and structural neuroplasticity at a subclinical level. This suggests that BCI technology could be an effective intervention for post‐stroke upper limb rehabilitation. However, more studies with larger sample size are required to increase the reliability of these results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5945970 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59459702018-05-14 Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis Cervera, María A. Soekadar, Surjo R. Ushiba, Junichi Millán, José del R. Liu, Meigen Birbaumer, Niels Garipelli, Gangadhar Ann Clin Transl Neurol Review Article Brain‐computer interfaces (BCIs) can provide sensory feedback of ongoing brain oscillations, enabling stroke survivors to modulate their sensorimotor rhythms purposefully. A number of recent clinical studies indicate that repeated use of such BCIs might trigger neurological recovery and hence improvement in motor function. Here, we provide a first meta‐analysis evaluating the clinical effectiveness of BCI‐based post‐stroke motor rehabilitation. Trials were identified using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PEDro and by inspection of references in several review articles. We selected randomized controlled trials that used BCIs for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation and provided motor impairment scores before and after the intervention. A random‐effects inverse variance method was used to calculate the summary effect size. We initially identified 524 articles and, after removing duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 473 articles. We found 26 articles corresponding to BCI clinical trials, of these, there were nine studies that involved a total of 235 post‐stroke survivors that fulfilled the inclusion criterion (randomized controlled trials that examined motor performance as an outcome measure) for the meta‐analysis. Motor improvements, mostly quantified by the upper limb Fugl‐Meyer Assessment (FMA‐UE), exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID=5.25) in six BCI studies, while such improvement was reached only in three control groups. Overall, the BCI training was associated with a standardized mean difference of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.20) in FMA‐UE compared to control conditions, which is in the range of medium to large summary effect size. In addition, several studies indicated BCI‐induced functional and structural neuroplasticity at a subclinical level. This suggests that BCI technology could be an effective intervention for post‐stroke upper limb rehabilitation. However, more studies with larger sample size are required to increase the reliability of these results. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5945970/ /pubmed/29761128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.544 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc on behalf of American Neurological Association. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Cervera, María A. Soekadar, Surjo R. Ushiba, Junichi Millán, José del R. Liu, Meigen Birbaumer, Niels Garipelli, Gangadhar Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis |
title | Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis |
title_full | Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis |
title_fullStr | Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis |
title_short | Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis |
title_sort | brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5945970/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29761128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.544 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cerveramariaa braincomputerinterfacesforpoststrokemotorrehabilitationametaanalysis AT soekadarsurjor braincomputerinterfacesforpoststrokemotorrehabilitationametaanalysis AT ushibajunichi braincomputerinterfacesforpoststrokemotorrehabilitationametaanalysis AT millanjosedelr braincomputerinterfacesforpoststrokemotorrehabilitationametaanalysis AT liumeigen braincomputerinterfacesforpoststrokemotorrehabilitationametaanalysis AT birbaumerniels braincomputerinterfacesforpoststrokemotorrehabilitationametaanalysis AT garipelligangadhar braincomputerinterfacesforpoststrokemotorrehabilitationametaanalysis |