Neuroanesthesia & neurocritical care
Noninvasive neuromodulation for disorders of consciousness: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
Our findings provide evidence that rTMS and TNS showed more positive effects for DoC, while tDCS was no better than sham stimulation.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC)
- Participants
- 147 patients · 24 studies
- Comparison
- Noninvasive neuromodulation vs sham control
- Outcome
- Change in levels of consciousness post intervention
Methodological detailsrandom-effects model, GRADE approach, Most studies (18 out of 24 studies, 75%) rated high risk of bias by RoB 2; methodological quality good for all trials (PEDro)
- Random-effects model
- GRADE approach
- Most studies (18 out of 24 studies, 75%) rated high risk of bias by RoB 2; methodological quality good for all trials (PEDro)
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Each group vs shamHedges' g (95% CI)
rTMS
0.49(0.01–0.98)
TNS
0.59(0.08–1.10)
Safety
- No difference for dropout in TNS or rTMS vs sham control
Original publication
Noninvasive neuromodulation for disorders of consciousness: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. Published 3 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →