ReviewCureus2025
Brain-Computer Interfaces in the Rehabilitation of Stroke and Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Efficacy.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuromorphic Technologies for Neuroengineering: From Adaptive Stimulation to SNN-Based Inference and Deployable Biointerfaces.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Engineered Exosomal miRNAs for Post-Stroke Neural Repair: Mechanisms, Delivery Strategies, and Translational Challenges.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have emerged as innovative tools for neurorehabilitation, enabling patients with stroke and spinal cord injury (SCI) to engage in task-specific training through direct neural control of external devices. Despite growing evidence, the overall clinical efficacy of BCIs in functional recovery remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of BCI-based rehabilitation on motor recovery in stroke and SCI, with a focus on upper and lower limb function. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for clinical trials published between January 2008 and October 2025, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and controlled interventional trials employing BCI interventions for motor rehabilitation. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB-2 and ROBINS-I. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising both stroke (acute, subacute, and chronic phases) and SCI populations. The pooled analysis demonstrated a significant mean difference of 3.26 points on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) in favour of BCI interventions (95% CI: 2.73-3.78, p < 0.001). Heterogeneity was negligible (I² = 0%). Subgroup analyses suggested that combining BCI with functional electrical stimulation or robotics yielded larger gains. BCI-based rehabilitation significantly improves motor function in stroke and SCI populations, with effect sizes exceeding the minimal clinically important difference for FMA-UE. These findings highlight the translational potential of BCIs as adjunctive therapies in neurorehabilitation. Larger, multicenter trials with standardised protocols are warranted to establish long-term efficacy and guide clinical integration.
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.