Cargando…

EFFICACY OF REPETITIVE TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION FOR IMPROVING LOWER LIMB FUNCTION IN INDIVIDUALS WITH NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED SHAM-CONTROLLED TRIALS

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation vs sham stimulation on improving lower-limb functional outcomes in individuals with neurological disorders. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus databases were searched from inception to 31 March 2020 to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: KROGH, Søren, JØNSSON, Anette B, AAGAARD, Per, KASCH, Helge
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Foundation for Rehabilitation Information 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8862648/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34913062
http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v53.1097
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation vs sham stimulation on improving lower-limb functional outcomes in individuals with neurological disorders. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus databases were searched from inception to 31 March 2020 to identify papers (n = 1,198). Two researchers independently reviewed studies for eligibility. Randomized clinical trials with parallel-group design, involving individuals with neurological disorders, including lower-limb functional outcome measures and published in scientific peer-reviewed journals were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently screened eligible papers (n = 27) for study design, clinical population characteristics, stimulation protocol and relevant outcome measures, and assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies presented a moderate risk of selection, attrition and reporting bias. An overall effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was found for outcomes: gait (effect size [95% confidence interval; 95% CI]: 0.51 [0.29; 0.74], p = 0.003) and muscle strength (0.99 [0.40; 1.58], p = 0.001) and disorders: stroke (0.20 [0.00; 0.39], p = 0.05), Parkinson’s disease (1.01 [0.65; 1.37], p = 0.02) and spinal cord injury (0.50 [0.14; 0.85], p = 0.006), compared with sham. No effect was found for outcomes: mobility and balance. CONCLUSION: Supplementary repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may promote rehabilitation focused on ambulation and muscle strength and overall lower-limb functional recovery in individuals with stroke, Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injury. Further evidence is needed to extrapolate these findings.