SynthesisJournal of neurology2023
Efficacy and safety of noninvasive brain stimulation for patients with cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06420271 (Effects of Combined Transcranial Electrical and Magnetic Stimulation of Cerebellum on Balance Function in Ataxia Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Effects of Combined Transcranial Electrical and Magnetic Stimulation of Cerebellum on Balance Function in Ataxia Patients
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Deep Brain Stimulation for Cerebellar Ataxia: A Systematic Review on Indications, Targets and Outcomes.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Degenerative Cerebellar Ataxia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024Pooled it
- Global research trends in transcranial magnetic stimulation for stroke (1994-2023): promising, yet requiring further practice.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Transcranial alternating current stimulation for treating spinocerebellar ataxia type 3: A randomized controlled trial.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Trial
- Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation improves motor function in Parkinson's disease.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2024Trial
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor function, depression, and cognitive dysfunction in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2026Review
- Clinical development and guiding theory of transcranial magnetic stimulation: a literature review.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy of brain stimulation therapies across psychiatric, movement, and cognitive disorders: an umbrella review synthesizing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Effects of central-peripheral FMS on urinary retention after spinal cord injury: a pilot randomized controlled trial protocol.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the development of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, many researchers have turned their attention to NIBS as a promising treatment for cerebellar ataxia. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of NIBS in treating patients with cerebellar ataxia.
methodsDatabases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library, were retrieved for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two researchers conducted literature screening, data extraction, literature quality assessment, and heterogeneity analysis between RCTs. According to the magnitude of heterogeneity I
resultsA total of 14 RCTs including 406 patients with cerebellar ataxia met the inclusion criteria. The included RCTs had an overall low-risk bias and an intermediate level of evidence recommendation for key outcome indicators, such as the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and international cooperative ataxia rating scale (ICARS). The results of meta-analysis showed that cerebellar NIBS, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), was effective in reducing the SARA scores (MD = - 3.45, 95%CI = [- 4.85, - 2.50], P < 0.05) and ICARS scores (MD = - 10.87, 95%CI = [- 14.46, - 7.28], P < 0.05) in patients with cerebellar ataxia compared to controls. Subgroup analysis showed that the efficacy of tDCS and rTMS was statistically different in patients with cerebellar ataxia as assessed by the SARA scores, but not by the ICARS scores. There was statistically significant difference in the efficacy of NIBS for the treatment of cerebellar ataxia caused by different etiologies. As for safety, 8 of 14 included studies documented the adverse effects of NIBS, and only two studies reported the mild adverse events of NIBS.
conclusionsCerebellar NIBS was safe and effective in improving the motor coordination of patients with cerebellar ataxia, and tDCS was better than rTMS in the treatment of cerebellar ataxia. In addition, the efficacy of NIBS was different in the treatment of different types of cerebellar ataxia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37460852What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.