SynthesisMovement disorders clinical practice2024
Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Degenerative Cerebellar Ataxia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of physiotherapy on degenerative cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Degenerative Ataxia. A Sham-Controlled Clinical and Quantitative Analysis.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Transcranial alternating current stimulation for treating spinocerebellar ataxia type 3: A randomized controlled trial.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Trial
- Motor Improvements Following Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation with kTMP: A Case Study of Cerebellar Stroke.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Motor and Cognitive Improvements Following Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation with kTMP: A Case Study of Cerebellar Stroke.Research square · 2026Article
- Back to the Frequency: Evidence that Cerebellar tDCS Restores Cerebral Cortex Oscillations.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Cerebellar-Prefrontal Connectivity Predicts Negative Symptom Severity Across the Psychosis Spectrum.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026Article
- Cerebellar Hemispheric Contribution to the Dynamics of Visuomotor Learning during Interlimb Coordination: Insights from an rTMS Study.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2025Article
- Feasibility and preliminary signal of cerebellar intermittent theta burst stimulation for static balance in cerebellar ataxia: a pilot study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), as a neurological intervention for degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) based on preregistration (PROSPERO: CRD42023379192).
objectiveWe aimed to explore clinical outcomes and examine the parameters associated with NIBS efficacy in DCA patients.
methodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, CHINAL, and PEDro databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction, quality assessment, and heterogeneity analyses were conducted; the Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence and a meta-analysis was performed.
resultsSeventeen RCTs that included 661 patients on the scale for assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and 606 patients on the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) were included. These RCTs showed a serious risk of bias (RoB) and low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. NIBS significantly reduced SARA (MD = -2.49, [95% confidence interval: -3.34, -1.64]) and ICARS (-5.27 [-7.06, -3.47]); the subgroup analysis showed significant effects: rTMS and tES reduced both outcomes. However, there were no significant differences in the effects of rTMS and tES. Additional subgroup analysis indicated the impact of rTMS frequency and the total number of tES sessions on ataxia.
conclusionNon-invasive brain stimulation may reduce ataxia in DCA patients, but the estimated effect size may change in future studies because the RoB was serious and the certainty of evidence was low, and the heterogeneity was high. To establish evidence for selecting NIBS methods and parameters, continued high-quality RCTs are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.