Evaluating the quality of conduct of systematic reviews on the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for aphasia rehabilitation post-stroke
Evaluating the quality of conduct of systematic reviews on the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for aphasia rehabilitation post-stroke
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02687038.2019.1632786
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-23
期刊：
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Kambanaros, Maria
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Georgiou, Anastasios M.;Lada, Eleni;Kambanaros, Maria
背景：无创脑刺激技术，如重复经颅磁刺激（rTMS），用于促进中风失语症患者的语言恢复。尽管 rTMS 是一种很有前景的治疗方法，但仍需要进一步研究来扩大该技术在中风引起的失语症中的应用知识库。目的：使用 AMSTAR 2（评估系统评价的测量工具）仪器，评估对应用 rTMS 进行中风后失语症康复干预措施的随机对照试验 (RCT) 进行系统评价的质量。方法和程序：对系统评价特定的数据库进行了搜索。四项系统评价符合纳入标准。使用 AMSTAR 2 仪器对每个系统评价的所有方面进行严格评估。结果和结果：基于 AMSTAR 2 确定的关键领域弱点的总体置信度对于一项系统审查较低，而对于其余三个系统审查则非常低。结论：已发表的关于应用 rTMS 治疗中风后失语症康复的随机对照试验的系统评价质量较低。 rTMS 对中风后语言恢复有效性的证据仍无定论。研究结果强调需要对 TMS 作为失语症干预方法的适用性进行严格的方法试验。迫切需要发布指南来提供可靠且可复制的结果。
Background: Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are used to facilitate the recovery of language in stroke patients with aphasia. Although rTMS is a promising therapeutic method, further investigations are needed to expand the knowledge base about the use of the technique in stroke-induced aphasia. Aims: To evaluate the quality of conduct of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions on the application of rTMS for aphasia rehabilitation post-stroke using the AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instrument. Methods & Procedures: A search was performed of databases specific to systematic reviews. Four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. All aspects regarding the conduct of each individual systematic review was critically appraised using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. Outcomes & Results: The overall confidence ratings based on weaknesses in critical domains identified by the AMSTAR 2 was low for one systematic review and critically low for the remaining three. Conclusions: The quality of conduct of published systematic reviews of RCTs on the application of rTMS for aphasia rehabilitation post-stroke is low. The evidence for the effectiveness of rTMS on language recovery post-stroke remains inconclusive. The findings underscore the need for methodologically rigor trials on the applicability of TMS as an intervention approach for aphasia. Published guidelines to provide reliable and replicable results are urgently needed.