Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Neurology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Published data used for the systematic review and meta-analysis are available from the authors.

References

  1. Brusse E, Maat-Kievit JA, van Swieten JC (2007) Diagnosis and management of early- and late-onset cerebellar ataxia. Clin Genet 71(1):12–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Manto MU (2005) The wide spectrum of spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs). Cerebellum 4(1):2–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pandolfo M (2009) Friedreich ataxia: the clinical picture. J Neurol 256(Suppl 1):3–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Evidente VG et al (2000) Hereditary ataxias. Mayo Clin Proc 75(5):475–490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Manto M, Marmolino D (2009) Cerebellar ataxias. Curr Opin Neurol 22(4):419–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zesiewicz TA et al (2018) Comprehensive systematic review summary: treatment of cerebellar motor dysfunction and ataxia: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 90(10):464–471

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Liberati A et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins JP et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Higgins JP et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldet G, Howick J (2013) Understanding GRADE: an introduction. J Evid Based Med 6(1):50–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guyatt G et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):383–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Egger M et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cha HG (2017) The effect of low-frequency (1 Hz) rTMS on the cerebellar cortex in patients with ataxia after a posterior circulation stroke: randomized control trial. J Magn 22(4):625–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim WS et al (2014) Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the cerebellum on patients with ataxia after posterior circulation stroke: a pilot study. J Rehabil Med 46(5):418–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. França C et al (2020) Effects of cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation on ataxias: a randomized trial. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 80:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen TX et al (2021) The efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation for cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cerebellum 20(1):124–133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Song P et al (2020) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the cerebellum improves ataxia and cerebello-fronto plasticity in multiple system atrophy: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled and TMS-EEG study. Aging (Albany NY) 12(20):20611–20622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Manor B et al (2019) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in spinocerebellar ataxia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Front Neurol 10:73 (electronic resource)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Shiga Y et al (2002) Transcranial magnetic stimulation alleviates truncal ataxia in spinocerebellar degeneration. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 72(1):124–126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Benussi A et al (2015) Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with ataxia: a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study. Mov Disord 30(12):1701–1705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Maas R et al (2022) Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Neurotherapeutics 02:02

    Google Scholar 

  22. Benussi A et al (2018) Cerebello-spinal tDCS in ataxia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, crossover trial. Neurology 91(12):e1090–e1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Benussi A et al (2017) Long term clinical and neurophysiological effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with neurodegenerative ataxia. Brain Stimul 10(2):242–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ahn JH et al (2022) M1 and cerebellar tDCS for MSA-C: a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover study. Cerebellum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-022-01416-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Benussi A et al (2021) Motor and cognitive outcomes of cerebello-spinal stimulation in neurodegenerative ataxia. Brain 144(8):2310–2321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Barretto TL et al (2019) Transcranial direct current stimulation in the treatment of cerebellar ataxia: a two-phase, double-blind, auto-matched, pilot study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 182:123–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Joo BE, Lee CN, Park KW (2012) Prevalence rate and functional status of cerebellar ataxia in Korea. Cerebellum 11(3):733–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Marchina S et al (2021) Transcranial direct current stimulation for post-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Neurol 268(1):293–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Elsner B, Kugler J, Mehrholz J (2020) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Neuroeng Rehabil 17(1):88

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Yao L et al (2020) Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with poststroke aphasia: systematic review and meta-analysis of its effect upon communication. J Speech Lang Hear Res 63(11):3801–3815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. De Risio L et al (2020) Recovering from depression with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies. Transl Psychiatry 10(1):393

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lefaucheur JP et al (2017) Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin Neurophysiol 128(1):56–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Choi JH et al (2022) Placebo response in degenerative cerebellar ataxias: a descriptive review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. J Neurol 269(1):62–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Key Research and Development Project of Jiangxi Province (20203BBGL73127) to Mao-Yuan Wang.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Cheng Gong and Yi Long have equally contributed to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou City, 341400, Jiangxi Province, China

    Cheng Gong, Yi Long, Xu-Miao Peng & Hao Hu

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou City, 341400, Jiangxi Province, China

    Cheng Gong, Yi Long, Xu-Miao Peng, Hao Hu, Jing Chen, Li Xiao, Yan-Biao Zhong, Mao-Yuan Wang & Yun Luo

  3. Ganzhou Intelligent Rehabilitation Technology Innovation Center, Ganzhou City, 341400, Jiangxi Province, China

    Jing Chen, Li Xiao, Yan-Biao Zhong, Mao-Yuan Wang & Yun Luo

  4. Ganzhou Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ganzhou City, 341400, Jiangxi Province, China

    Jing Chen, Li Xiao, Yan-Biao Zhong, Mao-Yuan Wang & Yun Luo

Authors
  1. Cheng Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xu-Miao Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hao Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jing Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Li Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yan-Biao Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mao-Yuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yun Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yan-Biao Zhong, Mao-Yuan Wang or Yun Luo.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical approval

This article is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

In this article, no patient care was involved.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (RAR 989 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gong, C., Long, Y., Peng, XM. et al. Efficacy and safety of noninvasive brain stimulation for patients with cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Neurol 270, 4782–4799 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11799-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11799-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation