Search

Objective: The aim of the study is to determine the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation on global cognition and ability in daily life activities of patients with poststroke cognitive impairment. Design: Nine electronic databases were searched from their respective inceptions through January 2022. We included the randomized controlled trials that used transcranial direct current stimulation for poststroke cognitive impairment and included at least one global cognitive function or ability in daily life activities outcome indicators. Two reviewers appraised the risks of bias through the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and performed the meta-analysis. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. Results: Twenty-two studies (1198 participants) were included. Most studies had no significant bias in the quality of the methodology. Meta-analyses found that compared with the control group, transcranial direct current stimulation increased Montreal cognitive assessment, Mini-mental state examination, Loewenstein occupational therapy cognitive assessment, total effective rate of cognition, modified Barthel Index, and decreased P300 latency (all P < 0.05). These results showed transcranial direct current stimulation can improve cognitive function and ability in daily life activities in poststroke cognitive impairment. Conclusions: The transcranial direct current stimulation may have a significant rehabilitation effect on global cognitive functioning and ability in daily life activities of patients with poststroke cognitive impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the study is to comprehensively assess the recovery effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with poststroke cognitive impairment. Methods: Six English and four Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies published up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials of patients with poststroke cognitive impairment treated with high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation were included. Included studies were assessed for the risk of bias through the Cochrane Intervention Systematic Review Manual 5.1.0. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. Results: Sixty-one randomized controlled trials (4012 patients) were included. Montreal Cognitive Assessment Score, Mini-Mental State Examination score, event-related potential P300 (P300) amplitude, Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment score, and total effective rate of cognitive function were higher in the high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group than in the control group at the end of the treatment period, and scores of Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale and P300 latency were lower in the high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group than in the control group. Fifty studies had selected the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as the stimulation site for high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Conclusions: Compared with nonrepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation not only improves the overall cognitive function of poststroke cognitive impairment patients but also has better rehabilitation results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of corticosteroid injection with lidocaine injection in treating tennis elbow. Design: It is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients with tennis elbow for more than 1 mo were recruited from a hospital-based rehabilitation outpatient clinic. A total of 70 patients were recruited, and 61 patients completed the study. Patients received an injection of either 10 mg (1 ml) of triamcinolone (corticosteroid group, n = 30) or 1 ml of 1% lidocaine (lidocaine group, n = 31). All of the outcome measures were evaluated before the intervention and at 2 wks and 2 mos after treatment. Results: No significant group differences were observed between the corticosteroid and lidocaine groups regarding Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, visual analog scale for pain, and grip strength at baseline and at 2 wks and 2 mos after treatment (P > 0.05). However, within-group comparison showed significant improvement after injection with regard to Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, visual analog scale for pain, and grip strength in both groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions: No differences in the short-term outcomes were found between lidocaine and corticosteroid injection in a small sample of people with tennis elbow with mean duration of 3.8 mos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]