Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38872818›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024

Neurorehabilitation with vagus nerve stimulation: a systematic review.

Radha Korupolu, Alyssa Miller, Andrew Park, Nuray Yozbatiran

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Good vibrations: Sternal vibration enhances white matter density and interoceptive awareness.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Autonomic dysfunction after stroke: an overview of recent clinical evidence and perspectives on therapeutic management.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Radha KorupoluUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Alyssa MillerUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Andrew ParkCraig Hospital, Englewood, CO, United States.
Nuray YozbatiranUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.

Funding

Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR003168 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MILLER, CHARLES C · 2019 to 2023
$4.9M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR003168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) studies to present data on the safety and efficacy on motor recovery following stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: Data sources: PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane. Study selection: Clinical trials of VNS in animal models and humans with TBI and SCI were included to evaluate the effects of pairing VNS with rehabilitation therapy on motor recovery. Data extraction: Two reviewers independently assessed articles according to the evaluation criteria and extracted relevant data electronically. Data synthesis: Twenty-nine studies were included; 11 were animal models of stroke, TBI, and SCI, and eight involved humans with stroke. While there was heterogeneity in methods of delivering VNS with respect to rehabilitation therapy in animal studies and human non-invasive studies, a similar methodology was used in all human-invasive VNS studies. In animal studies, pairing VNS with rehabilitation therapy consistently improved motor outcomes compared to controls. Except for one study, all human invasive and non-invasive studies with controls demonstrated a trend toward improvement in motor outcomes compared to sham controls post-intervention. However, compared to non-invasive, invasive VNS, studies reported severe adverse events such as vocal cord palsy, dysphagia, surgical site infection, and hoarseness of voice, which were found to be related to surgery. Conclusion: Our review suggests that VNS (non-invasive or invasive) paired with rehabilitation can improve motor outcomes after stroke in humans. Hence, VNS human studies are needed in people with TBI and SCI. There are risks related to device implantation to deliver invasive VNS compared to non-invasive VNS. Future human comparison studies are required to study and quantify the efficacy vs. risks of paired VNS delivered via different methods with rehabilitation, which would allow patients to make an informed decision. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=330653.

Indexed as

brain injurymotor activitymotor activity vagus nerve stimulationrehabilitationspinal cord injuryspinal cord injury strokestrokevagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID38872818
PMCPMC11169586

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.