Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
201,818 studies31 sourcesUpdated 59 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Frontiers in Neurology

Effects of combined non-invasive brain stimulation and brain-computer interface on upper extremity motor function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. 1Rehabilitation Medicine Center and Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University
  2. 2Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Medicine in Sichuan Province, West China Hospital, Sichuan University

Abstract

Background: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) and brain-computer interface (BCI) training are both promising approaches for post-stroke upper extremity rehabilitation, and their combination has been hypothesized to produce synergistic effects. However, the efficacy of this combined strategy has not been systematically evaluated.

Methods: We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2025 for randomized controlled trials evaluating NIBS combined with BCI in stroke rehabilitation. Mean differences (MDs) in pre- to post-intervention change scores and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted to examine potential moderators.

Results: Seven randomized controlled trials were included. Pooled analysis showed that NIBS combined with BCI did not provide superior immediate upper extremity motor recovery compared with BCI alone and was associated with lower FMA-UE improvement (MD = −3.67, 95% CI −5.32 to −2.01; I ² = 0%). Subgroup analysis suggested that this effect was mainly driven by studies of tDCS plus BCI, while no significant difference was observed for rTMS plus BCI. No significant long-term effect of tDCS plus BCI or stimulation-site difference for rTMS plus BCI was identified. However, the certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were unstable.

Conclusion: Current evidence does not demonstrate a clear additional benefit of NIBS as an adjunct to BCI for upper extremity rehabilitation after stroke. Given the limited number of studies and the instability of the pooled result in sensitivity analysis, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. More rigorous and adequately powered trials are needed to determine whether optimized stimulation protocols or specific patient subgroups may benefit from this combined strategy.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , identifier CRD420251151708.

Related

  1. Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation Combined with General Anesthesia in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Patient- and Assessor-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial
    Yunxiao Zhang, Wanpu Yan, Jin Wei +4
    Journal of Clinical MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0General medicineCrossref
  2. Perioperative non-invasive brain stimulation for the prevention of postoperative delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    H. Wang, L. Du, D. Li +7
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textSurgery & anaesthesiamedRxiv
  3. The application of brain-computer interface combined with neuromodulation for stroke upper-limb rehabilitation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Hede Zhu, Cong Kang, Yuanyuan Luo +5
    BMC NeurologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textGeneral medicinePMC
  4. Upper extremity motor outcomes during paired vagus nerve stimulation in chronic ischemic stroke: a retrospective single-health-system cohort study
    Ronald Benitez, Michelle Darling, Paige Zaorski +4
    Frontiers in neurologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textNeurologyEurope PMCCrossref
  5. Short- and Long-term Patency of Prophylactic and Therapeutic Lymphovenous Anastomosis for Extremity Lymphedema: A Systematic Review
    Adriano Fabi, Séverin R. Wendelspiess, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog +1
    Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global openPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
BibTeX
@article{qiu2026effects,
  title = {{Effects of combined non-invasive brain stimulation and brain-computer interface on upper extremity motor function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis}},
  author = {Shutao Qiu and Li Zhang and Qiang Gao},
  journal = {Frontiers in Neurology},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3389/fneur.2026.1993570},
  url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2026.1993570/full},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Effects of combined non-invasive brain stimulation and brain-computer interface on upper extremity motor function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU  - Shutao Qiu
AU  - Li Zhang
AU  - Qiang Gao
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/19
JO  - Frontiers in Neurology
DO  - 10.3389/fneur.2026.1993570
UR  - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2026.1993570/full
AB  - Background: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) and brain-computer interface (BCI) training are both promising approaches for post-stroke upper extremity rehabilitation, and their combination has been hypothesized to produce synergistic effects. However, the efficacy of this combined strategy has not been systematically evaluated.  Methods: We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2025 for randomized controlled trials evaluating NIBS combined with BCI in stroke rehabilitation. Mean differences (MDs) in pre- to post-intervention change scores and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted to examine potential moderators.  Results: Seven randomized controlled trials were included. Pooled analysis showed that NIBS combined with BCI did not provide superior immediate upper extremity motor recovery compared with BCI alone and was associated with lower FMA-UE improvement (MD = −3.67, 95% CI −5.32 to −2.01; I ² = 0%). Subgroup analysis suggested that this effect was mainly driven by studies of tDCS plus BCI, while no significant difference was observed for rTMS plus BCI. No significant long-term effect of tDCS plus BCI or stimulation-site difference for rTMS plus BCI was identified. However, the certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were unstable.  Conclusion: Current evidence does not demonstrate a clear additional benefit of NIBS as an adjunct to BCI for upper extremity rehabilitation after stroke. Given the limited number of studies and the instability of the pooled result in sensitivity analysis, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. More rigorous and adequately powered trials are needed to determine whether optimized stimulation protocols or specific patient subgroups may benefit from this combined strategy.  Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , identifier CRD420251151708.
SN  - 1664-2295
ER  -