Effects of Non‐Invasive Brain Stimulation for Degenerative Cerebellar Ataxia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackgroundThis systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of non‐invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), as a neurological intervention for degenerative cerebellar ataxia (DCA) based on preregistration (PROSPERO: CRD42023379192).ObjectiveWe aimed to explore clinical outcomes and examine the parameters associated with NIBS efficacy in DCA patients.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, CHINAL, and PEDro databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction, quality assessment, and heterogeneity analyses were conducted; the Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence and a meta‐analysis was performed.ResultsSeventeen RCTs that included 661 patients on the scale for assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and 606 patients on the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) were included. These RCTs showed a serious risk of bias (RoB) and low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. NIBS significantly reduced SARA (MD = −2.49, [95% confidence interval: −3.34, −1.64]) and ICARS (−5.27 [−7.06, −3.47]); the subgroup analysis showed significant effects: rTMS and tES reduced both outcomes. However, there were no significant differences in the effects of rTMS and tES. Additional subgroup analysis indicated the impact of rTMS frequency and the total number of tES sessions on ataxia.ConclusionNon‐invasive brain stimulation may reduce ataxia in DCA patients, but the estimated effect size may change in future studies because the RoB was serious and the certainty of evidence was low, and the heterogeneity was high. To establish evidence for selecting NIBS methods and parameters, continued high‐quality RCTs are required.