-
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2020The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate motor cortex reorganization in amputees as indexed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) cortical mapping and...
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate motor cortex reorganization in amputees as indexed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) cortical mapping and its relationship with phantom limb pain (PLP). Pubmed database were systematically searched. Three independent researchers screened the relevant articles, and the data of motor output maps, including the number of effective stimulation sites, center of gravity (CoG) shift, and their clinical correlations were extracted. We calculated a pooled CoG shift for motor cortex TMS mapping. The search yielded 468 articles, 11 were included. Three studies performed correlation between the cortical changes and PLP intensity, and only one study compared cortical mapping changes between amputees with pain and without pain. Results showed (i) enlarged excitable area and a shift of CoG of neighboring areas toward the deafferented limb area; (ii) no correlation between motor cortex reorganization and level of pain and (iii) greater cortical reorganization in patients with PLP compared to amputation without pain. Our review supports the evidence for cortical reorganization in the affected hemisphere following an amputation. The motor cortex reorganization could be a potential clinical target for prevention and treatment response of PLP.
PubMed: 32372907
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00314 -
The Journal of Pain Sep 2019Implantable motor cortex stimulation (iMCS) has been performed for >25 years to treat various intractable pain syndromes. Its effectiveness is highly variable and,...
Implantable motor cortex stimulation (iMCS) has been performed for >25 years to treat various intractable pain syndromes. Its effectiveness is highly variable and, although various studies revealed predictive variables, none of these were found repeatedly. This study uses neural network analysis (NNA) to identify predictive factors of iMCS treatment for intractable pain. A systematic review provided a database of patient data on an individual level of patients who underwent iMCS to treat refractory pain between 1991 and 2017. Responders were defined as patients with a pain relief of >40% as measured by a numerical rating scale (NRS) score. NNA was carried out to predict the outcome of iMCS and to identify predictive factors that impacted the outcome of iMCS. The outcome prediction value of the NNA was expressed as the mean accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The NNA furthermore provided the mean weight of predictive variables, which shows the impact of the predictive variable on the prediction. The mean weight was converted into the mean relative influence (M), a value that varies between 0 and 100%. A total of 358 patients were included (202 males [56.4%]; mean age, 54.2 ±13.3 years), 201 of whom were responders to iMCS. NNA had a mean accuracy of 66.3% and a sensitivity and specificity of 69.8% and 69.4%, respectively. NNA further identified 6 predictive variables that had a relatively high M: 1) the sex of the patient (M = 19.7%); 2) the origin of the lesion (M = 15.1%); 3) the preoperative numerical rating scale score (M = 9.2%); 4) preoperative use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (M = 7.3%); 5) preoperative intake of opioids (M = 7.1%); and 6) the follow-up period (M = 13.1%). The results from the present study show that these 6 predictive variables influence the outcome of iMCS and that, based on these variables, a fair prediction model can be built to predict outcome after iMCS surgery. PERSPECTIVE: The presented NNA analyzed the functioning of computational models and modeled nonlinear statistical data. Based on this NNA, 6 predictive variables were identified that are suggested to be of importance in the improvement of future iMCS to treat chronic pain.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Motor Cortex; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Intractable; Prognosis
PubMed: 30771593
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2019.02.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type of corticosteroid to use, dose, frequency, timing of use or the route of administration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, on maternal morbidity and mortality, and on the child and adult in later life, of administering different types of corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone), or different corticosteroid dose regimens, including timing, frequency and mode of administration.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 May 2022) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any two corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone or any other corticosteroid that can cross the placenta), comparing different dose regimens (including frequency and timing of administration) in women at risk of preterm birth. We planned to exclude cross-over trials and cluster-randomised trials. We planned to include studies published as abstracts only along with studies published as full-text manuscripts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials (2494 women and 2762 infants) in this update, all of which recruited women who were at increased risk of preterm birth or had a medical indication for preterm birth. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Dexamethasone versus betamethasone Nine trials (2096 women and 2319 infants) compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. All trials administered both drugs intramuscularly, and the total dose in the course was consistent (22.8 mg or 24 mg), but the regimen varied. We assessed one new study to have no serious risk of bias concerns for most outcomes, but other studies were at moderate (six trials) or high (two trials) risk of bias due to selection, detection and attrition bias. Our GRADE assessments ranged between high- and low-certainty, with downgrades due to risk of bias and imprecision. Maternal outcomes The only maternal primary outcome reported was chorioamnionitis (death and puerperal sepsis were not reported). Although the rate of chorioamnionitis was lower with dexamethasone, we did not find conclusive evidence of a difference between the two drugs (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.06; 1 trial, 1346 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of women experiencing maternal adverse effects of therapy was lower with dexamethasone; however, there was not conclusive evidence of a difference between interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13; 2 trials, 1705 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Infant outcomes We are unsure whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of any known death after randomisation, because the 95% CI was compatible with both appreciable benefit and harm with dexamethasone (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63; 5 trials, 2105 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The choice of drug may make little or no difference to the risk of RDS (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; 5 trials, 2105 infants; high-certainty evidence). While there may be little or no difference in the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), there was substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity in this result (average (a) RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.81; 4 trials, 1902 infants; I² = 62%; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between the two drugs for chronic lung disease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; 1 trial, 1509 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we are unsure of the effects on necrotising enterocolitis, because there were few events in the studies reporting this outcome (RR 5.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.15; 2 studies, 441 infants; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term child outcomes Only one trial consistently followed up children longer term, reporting at two years' adjusted age. There is probably little or no difference between dexamethasone and betamethasone in the risk of neurodevelopmental disability at follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22; 2 trials, 1151 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of visual impairment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.15; 1 trial, 1227 children; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the drugs for hearing impairment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.16; 1 trial, 1227 children; moderate-certainty evidence), motor developmental delay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1166 children; moderate-certainty evidence) or intellectual impairment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1161 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the effect estimate for cerebral palsy is compatible with both an important increase in risk with dexamethasone, and no difference between interventions (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 6.39; 1 trial, 1223 children; low-certainty evidence). No trials followed the children beyond early childhood. Comparisons of different preparations and regimens of corticosteroids We found three studies that included a comparison of a different regimen or preparation of either dexamethasone or betamethasone (oral dexamethasone 32 mg versus intramuscular dexamethasone 24 mg; betamethasone acetate plus phosphate versus betamethasone phosphate; 12-hourly betamethasone versus 24-hourly betamethasone). The certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes from all three studies was very low, due to small sample size and risk of bias. Therefore, we were limited in our ability to draw conclusions from any of these studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, it remains unclear whether there are important differences between dexamethasone and betamethasone, or between one regimen and another. Most trials compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. While for most infant and early childhood outcomes there may be no difference between these drugs, for several important outcomes for the mother, infant and child the evidence was inconclusive and did not rule out significant benefits or harms. The evidence on different antenatal corticosteroid regimens was sparse, and does not support the use of one particular corticosteroid regimen over another.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betamethasone; Child; Child, Preschool; Chorioamnionitis; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Lung; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 35943347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006764.pub4 -
NeuroRehabilitation 2023Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) has been used to treat stroke motor sequelae regulating cortical excitability.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) has been used to treat stroke motor sequelae regulating cortical excitability. Early interventions are widely recommended, but there is also evidence showing interventions in subacute or chronic phases are still useful.
OBJECTIVE
To synthetize the evidence of rTMS protocols to improve upper limb motor function in people with subacute and/or chronic stroke.
METHODS
Four databases were searched in July 2022. Clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of different rTMS protocols on upper limb motor function in subacute or chronic phases post-stroke were included. PRISMA guidelines and PEDro scale were used.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies representing 1137 participants were included. Positive effects of all types of rTMS protocols on upper limb motor function were found. These effects were heterogeneous and not always clinically relevant or related to neurophysiological changes but produced evident changes if evaluated with functional tests.
CONCLUSION
rTMS interventions over M1 are effective for improving upper limb motor function in people with subacute and chronic stroke. When rTMS protocols were priming physical rehabilitation better effects were achieved. Studies considering minimal clinical differences and different dosing will help to generalize the use of these protocols in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Motor Cortex; Recovery of Function; Stroke Rehabilitation; Stroke; Upper Extremity; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37005900
DOI: 10.3233/NRE-220306 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Apr 2016Noninvasive brain stimulation has been demonstrated to modulate cortical activity in humans. In particular, theta burst stimulation (TBS) has gained notable attention... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Noninvasive brain stimulation has been demonstrated to modulate cortical activity in humans. In particular, theta burst stimulation (TBS) has gained notable attention due to its ability to induce lasting physiological changes after short stimulation durations. The present study aimed to provide a comprehensive meta-analytic review of the efficacy of two TBS paradigms; intermittent (iTBS) and continuous (cTBS), on corticospinal excitability in healthy individuals. Literature searches yielded a total of 87 studies adhering to the inclusion criteria. iTBS yielded moderately large MEP increases lasting up to 30 min with a pooled SMD of 0.71 (p<0.00001). cTBS produced a reduction in MEP amplitudes lasting up to 60 min, with the largest effect size seen at 5 min post stimulation (SMD=-0.9, P<0.00001). The collected studies were of heterogeneous nature, and a series of tests conducted indicated a degree of publication bias. No significant change in SICI and ICF was observed, with exception to decrease in SICI with cTBS at the early time point (SMD=0.42, P=0.00036). The results also highlight several factors contributing to TBS efficacy, including the number of pulses, frequency of stimulation and BDNF polymorphisms. Further research investigating optimal TBS stimulation parameters, particularly for iTBS, is needed in order for these paradigms to be successfully translated into clinical settings.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor; Evoked Potentials, Motor; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Motor Cortex; Neuronal Plasticity; Publication Bias; Pyramidal Tracts; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Young Adult
PubMed: 26850210
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.01.008 -
Psychological Medicine Apr 2020People with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have abnormalities in frontal, temporal, parietal and striato-thalamic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative meta-analyses of brain structural and functional abnormalities during cognitive control in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder.
BACKGROUND
People with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have abnormalities in frontal, temporal, parietal and striato-thalamic networks. It is unclear to what extent these abnormalities are distinctive or shared. This comparative meta-analysis aimed to identify the most consistent disorder-differentiating and shared structural and functional abnormalities.
METHODS
Systematic literature search was conducted for whole-brain voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of cognitive control comparing people with ASD or ADHD with typically developing controls. Regional gray matter volume (GMV) and fMRI abnormalities during cognitive control were compared in the overall sample and in age-, sex- and IQ-matched subgroups with seed-based d mapping meta-analytic methods.
RESULTS
Eighty-six independent VBM (1533 ADHD and 1295 controls; 1445 ASD and 1477 controls) and 60 fMRI datasets (1001 ADHD and 1004 controls; 335 ASD and 353 controls) were identified. The VBM meta-analyses revealed ADHD-differentiating decreased ventromedial orbitofrontal (z = 2.22, p < 0.0001) but ASD-differentiating increased bilateral temporal and right dorsolateral prefrontal GMV (zs ⩾ 1.64, ps ⩽ 0.002). The fMRI meta-analyses of cognitive control revealed ASD-differentiating medial prefrontal underactivation but overactivation in bilateral ventrolateral prefrontal cortices and precuneus (zs ⩾ 1.04, ps ⩽ 0.003). During motor response inhibition specifically, ADHD relative to ASD showed right inferior fronto-striatal underactivation (zs ⩾ 1.14, ps ⩽ 0.003) but shared right anterior insula underactivation.
CONCLUSIONS
People with ADHD and ASD have mostly distinct structural abnormalities, with enlarged fronto-temporal GMV in ASD and reduced orbitofrontal GMV in ADHD; and mostly distinct functional abnormalities, which were more pronounced in ASD.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Brain; Cerebral Cortex; Child; Cognition; Female; Gray Matter; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Parietal Lobe; Thalamus; Young Adult
PubMed: 32216846
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291720000574 -
Intensive Care Medicine Apr 2022To assess the ability of clinical examination, blood biomarkers, electrophysiology or neuroimaging assessed within 7 days from return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)...
PURPOSE
To assess the ability of clinical examination, blood biomarkers, electrophysiology or neuroimaging assessed within 7 days from return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to predict good neurological outcome, defined as no, mild, or moderate disability (CPC 1-2 or mRS 0-3) at discharge from intensive care unit or later, in comatose adult survivors from cardiac arrest (CA).
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Sensitivity and specificity for good outcome were calculated for each predictor. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool.
RESULTS
A total of 37 studies were included. Due to heterogeneities in recording times, predictor thresholds, and definition of some predictors, meta-analysis was not performed. A withdrawal or localisation motor response to pain immediately or at 72-96 h after ROSC, normal blood values of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) at 24 h-72 h after ROSC, a short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) N20 wave amplitude > 4 µV or a continuous background without discharges on electroencephalogram (EEG) within 72 h from ROSC, and absent diffusion restriction in the cortex or deep grey matter on MRI on days 2-7 after ROSC predicted good neurological outcome with more than 80% specificity and a sensitivity above 40% in most studies. Most studies had moderate or high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
In comatose cardiac arrest survivors, clinical, biomarker, electrophysiology, and imaging studies identified patients destined to a good neurological outcome with high specificity within the first week after cardiac arrest (CA).
Topics: Adult; Coma; Heart Arrest; Humans; Hypothermia, Induced; Prognosis; Survivors
PubMed: 35244745
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-022-06618-z -
The European Journal of Neuroscience Aug 2017Numerous studies have explored the effects of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) - including anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS), cathodal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Numerous studies have explored the effects of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) - including anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS), cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS), transcranial alternative current stimulation (tACS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) - on corticospinal excitability (CSE) in healthy populations. However, the efficacy of these techniques and their optimal parameters for producing robust results has not been studied. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to consolidate current knowledge about the effects of various parameters of a-tDCS, c-tDCS, tACS, tRNS and tPCS on the CSE of the primary motor cortex (M1) in healthy people. Leading electronic databases were searched for relevant studies published between January 1990 and February 2017; 126 articles were identified, and their results were extracted and analysed using RevMan software. The meta-analysis showed that a-tDCS application on the dominant side significantly increases CSE (P < 0.01) and that the efficacy of a-tDCS is dependent on current density and duration of application. Similar results were obtained for stimulation of M1 on the non-dominant side (P = 0.003). The effects of a-tDCS reduce significantly after 24 h (P = 0.006). Meta-analysis also revealed significant reduction in CSE following c-tDCS (P < 0.001) and significant increases after tRNS (P = 0.03) and tPCS (P = 0.01). However, tACS effects on CSE were only significant when the stimulation frequency was ≥140 Hz. This review provides evidence that tES has substantial effects on CSE in healthy individuals for a range of stimulus parameters.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Humans; Motor Cortex; Pyramidal Tracts; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 28699187
DOI: 10.1111/ejn.13640 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2023Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is a promising noninvasive therapy to restore the excitability of the cortex, and subsequently improve the function of the...
The effectiveness of intermittent theta burst stimulation for upper limb motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is a promising noninvasive therapy to restore the excitability of the cortex, and subsequently improve the function of the upper extremities. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of iTBS in restoring upper limb function and modulating cortical excitability. We aimed to evaluate the effects of iTBS on upper limb motor recovery after stroke.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this article is to evaluate the influence of intermittent theta-burst stimulation on upper limb motor recovery and improve the quality of life.
METHOD
A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CBM, including only English studies, to identify studies that investigated the effects of iTBS on upper limb recovery, compared with sham iTBS used in control groups. Effect size was reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD).
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that when compared to the control group, the iTBS group had a significant difference in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) (WMD: 3.20, 95% CI: 1.42 to 4.97; WMD: 3.72, 95% CI: 2.13 to 5.30, respectively). In addition, there was also a significant improvement in the modified Ashworth scale (MAS) compared to the sham group (WMD: -0.56; 95% CI: -0.85 to -0.28). More evidence is still needed to confirm the effect of Barthel Index (BI) scores after interventions. However, no significant effect was found for the assessment of Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) amplitude and MEP latency (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.90; SMD: 0.35, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.87; SMD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.55; respectively).
CONCLUSION
Our results showed that iTBS significantly improved motor impairment, functional activities, and reduced muscle tone of upper limbs, thereby increasing the ability to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in stroke patients, while there were no significant differences in MEPs. In conclusion, iTBS is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation as an adjunct to therapy and enhances the therapeutic effect of conventional physical therapy. In the future, more randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes, high quality, and follow-up are necessary to explore the neurophysiological effects.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023392739.
PubMed: 37901439
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1272003 -
Translational Psychiatry Mar 2019Cortical excitation/inhibition (E/I) imbalances contribute to various clinical symptoms observed in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the detailed...
Cortical excitation/inhibition (E/I) imbalances contribute to various clinical symptoms observed in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the detailed pathophysiologic underpinning of E/I imbalance remains uncertain. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor-evoked potentials (MEP) are a non-invasive tool for examining cortical inhibition in ASD. Here, we conducted a systematic review on TMS neurophysiology in motor cortex (M1) such as MEPs and short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) between individuals with ASD and controls. Out of 538 initial records, we identified six articles. Five studies measured MEP, where four studies measured SICI. There were no differences in MEP amplitudes between the two groups, whereas SICI was likely to be reduced in individuals with ASD compared with controls. Notably, SICI largely reflects GABA(A) receptor-mediated function. Conversely, other magnetic resonance spectroscopy and postmortem methodologies assess GABA levels. The present review demonstrated that there may be neurophysiological deficits in GABA receptor-mediated function in ASD. In conclusion, reduced GABAergic function in the neural circuits could underlie the E/I imbalance in ASD, which may be related to the pathophysiology of clinical symptoms of ASD. Therefore, a novel treatment that targets the neural circuits related to GABA(A) receptor-mediated function in regions involved in the pathophysiology of ASD may be promising.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Evoked Potentials, Motor; Humans; Motor Cortex; Neural Inhibition; Receptors, GABA-A; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 30846682
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-019-0444-3