Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Sep 18;13(1):15415.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42077-2.

Effects and safety of vagus nerve stimulation on upper limb function in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Auwal Abdullahi  1 , Thomson W L Wong  1 , Shamay S M Ng  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effects and safety of vagus nerve stimulation on upper limb function in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Auwal Abdullahi et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is used to deliver electric current to stimulate the vagus nerve. The aim of this study is to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine its effects on motor function in patients with stroke. PubMED, Embase, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus were searched. Data on time since stroke, and mean scores and standard deviation on outcomes such as level of impairment and motor function were extracted. The results showed that invasive (MD 2.66, 95% CI 1.19-4.13, P = 0.0004) and non-invasive (MD 24.16, 95% CI 23.56-24.75, P = 0.00001) VNS are superior at improving level of motor impairment than the control post intervention and at follow-up respectively. Similarly, VNS improved motor function post intervention (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.41, P < 0.0001); and there was no significant difference in adverse events between invasive VNS and control (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.97-4.74, P = 0.06), and between non-invasive VNS and control (OR 4.54, 95% CI 0.48-42.97, P = 0.19). VNS can be used to improve motor function in patients with stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Risks of bias graph. (b) Risks of bias summary.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) Effect of VNS compared with control on level of motor impairment post intervention. (b) Relationship between VNS and control group in improving level of motor impairment post intervention. (c) Effect of non-invasive VNS compared with control on level of motor impairment at follow-up. (d) Effect of invasive VNS compared with control on motor function post intervention. (e) Difference in proportions of adverse events between VNS and control. (f) Relationship between VNS and control in adverse events.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kuriakose D, Xiao Z. Pathophysiology and treatment of stroke: Present status and future perspectives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020;21(20):7609. doi: 10.3390/ijms21207609. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boehme AK, Esenwa C, Elkind MS. Stroke risk factors, genetics, and prevention. Circ. Res. 2017;120(3):472–495. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308398. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fricker M, Tolkovsky AM, Borutaite V, Coleman M, Brown GC. Neuronal cell death. Physiol. Rev. 2018;98:813–880. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00011.2017. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zorowitz RD, Gillard PJ, Brainin M. Poststroke spasticity: Sequelae and burden on stroke survivors and caregivers. Neurol. 2013;80:S45–S52. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182764c86. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cullen B, O’Neill B, Evans JJ, Coen RF, Lawlor BA. A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 2007;78(8):790–799. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.095414. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types