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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cervera, María A., Soekadar, Surjo R., Ushiba, Junichi, Millán, José del R., Liu, Meigen, Birbaumer, Niels, Garipelli, Gangadhar
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