Neurol Sci. 2023 Dec 20. doi: 10.1007/s10072-023-07235-4. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in children with cerebral palsy and to compare the differences in efficacy of different treatment parameters. Computer searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, Vipshop and China Biomedical Literature Database were conducted to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TMS to improve function in children with cerebral palsy. The search period was from the establishment of the database to April 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data information, and the risk of bias was assessed for the included studies using the Cochrane Systematic Evaluation Manual 5.1.0. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata software. A total of 18 studies containing 1675 patients with cerebral palsy were included, and r-TMS did not differ significantly from other treatments in improving language function [MD = 2.80, 95% CI (-1.51, 7.11), Z = 1.27, P = 0.20] after treatment. The results of the reticulated meta-analysis showed the best probability ranking of the effect of three different frequencies of r-TMS on motor function scores in children with cerebral palsy: combined LF-rTMS + HF-rTMS (49.8%) > LF-rTMS (45.6%) > HF-rTMS (4.6%) > conventional rehabilitation (0%). Publication bias showed no significant asymmetry in the inverted funnel plot, but the possibility of publication bias could not be excluded. The results of this study showed that r-TMS was not statistically significant in improving language function in children with cerebral palsy compared to conventional treatment. r-TMS was almost unanimously significantly effective in motor function in children with cerebral palsy according to current literature data, and the combined high- and low-frequency transcranial magnetic therapy was better than low-frequency transcranial magnetic therapy.
PMID:38117402 | DOI:10.1007/s10072-023-07235-4
