Efficacy and safety of noninvasive brain stimulation for patients with cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With the development of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, many researchers have turned their attention to NIBS as a promising treatment for cerebellar ataxia. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of NIBS in treating patients with cerebellar ataxia. METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library, were retrieved for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two researchers conducted literature screening, data extraction, literature quality assessment, and heterogeneity analysis between RCTs. According to the magnitude of heterogeneity I2, an appropriate data analysis model was selected for meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs including 406 patients with cerebellar ataxia met the inclusion criteria. The included RCTs had an overall low-risk bias and an intermediate level of evidence recommendation for key outcome indicators, such as the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and international cooperative ataxia rating scale (ICARS). The results of meta-analysis showed that cerebellar NIBS, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), was effective in reducing the SARA scores (MD = - 3.45, 95%CI = [- 4.85, - 2.50], P < 0.05) and ICARS scores (MD = - 10.87, 95%CI = [- 14.46, - 7.28], P < 0.05) in patients with cerebellar ataxia compared to controls. Subgroup analysis showed that the efficacy of tDCS and rTMS was statistically different in patients with cerebellar ataxia as assessed by the SARA scores, but not by the ICARS scores. There was statistically significant difference in the efficacy of NIBS for the treatment of cerebellar ataxia caused by different etiologies. As for safety, 8 of 14 included studies documented the adverse effects of NIBS, and only two studies reported the mild adverse events of NIBS. CONCLUSIONS: Cerebellar NIBS was safe and effective in improving the motor coordination of patients with cerebellar ataxia, and tDCS was better than rTMS in the treatment of cerebellar ataxia. In addition, the efficacy of NIBS was different in the treatment of different types of cerebellar ataxia.