ArticleNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2026
Effectiveness of brain-computer interface rehabilitation in stroke patients: A meta-analysis and restricted cubic spline analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite growing evidence supporting the benefits of brain-computer interface (BCI) rehabilitation in post-stroke motor recovery, this review aimed to evaluate its efficacy and determine optimal training intensity. Systematic searches were conducted across Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science from January 1, 1990, to January 30, 2026, to identify relevant RCTs. A random- or fixed-effects model was used to pool outcome data. The restricted cubic spline (RCS) method was applied to estimate the dose-response relationship between BCI training intensity and upper extremity motor function. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Twenty-six studies, encompassing 1100 stroke patients, were included in this meta-analysis. The number of studies and participants varied across outcomes. Compared with control interventions, BCI-based rehabilitation demonstrated significant improvement in FMA-UE (24 studies, 1042 participants; MD = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.60), ARAT (8 studies, 524 participants; MD = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.39), WMFT (5 studies, 425 participants; MD = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.32 to 1.55), MBI (4 studies, 153 participants; MD = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.29 to 2.06), and BBS (2 studies, 35 participants; MD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.02 to 1.07), but not in FMA-LE (2 studies, 78 participants; MD = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.79 to 0.55) or TUGT (2 studies, 35 participants; MD = -0.40, 95% CI = -1.15 to 0.34). Dose-response analysis suggested a non-linear, inverted U-shaped relationship between BCI rehabilitation intensity and FMA-UE, with the peak effect estimated at approximately 48 min per session. BCI-based rehabilitation may be an effective therapeutic strategy for enhancing upper-extremity motor recovery in post-stroke patients, and this review further suggests a potential optimal session duration of approximately 48 min based on dose-response analysis. However, its efficacy for lower-extremity motor recovery remains inconclusive and warrants further investigation.
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.