Background. Dysphagia is a common sequelae after stroke. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a tool that has been used in the rehabilitation process to modify cortical excitability and improve dysphagia. Objective. To systematically evaluate the effect of NIBS on dysphagia after stroke and compare the effects of two different NIBS. Methods. Randomized controlled trials about the effect of NIBS on dysphagia after stroke were retrieved from databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM, from inception to June 2021. The quality of the trials was assessed, and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A statistical analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.3 and ADDIS 1.16.8. The effect size was evaluated by using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results. Ultimately, 18 studies involving 738 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that NIBS could improve the dysphagia outcome and severity scale (DOSS) score (standard mean difference SMD = 1.44 , 95% CI 0.80 to 2.08, P < 0.05 ) and the water swallow test score ( SMD = 6.23 , 95% CI 5.44 to 7.03, P < 0.05 ). NIBS could reduce the standardized swallowing assessment (SSA) score ( SMD = − 1.04 , 95% CI -1.50 to -0.58, P < 0.05 ), the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) score ( SMD = − 0.85 , 95% CI -1.33 to -0.36, P < 0.05 ), and the functional dysphagia scale score ( SMD = − 1.05 , 95% CI -1.48 to -0.62, P < 0.05 ). Network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of two different NIBS on the DOSS score is rTMS   P = 0.52 > tDCS   P = 0.48 , the best probabilistic ranking of the SSA score is rTMS   P = 0.72 > tDCS   P = 0.28 , and the best probabilistic ranking of the PAS score is rTMS   P = 0.68 > tDCS   P = 0.32 . Conclusion. Existing evidence showed that NIBS could improve swallowing dysfunction and reduce the occurrence of aspiration after stroke, and that rTMS is better than tDCS. Limited by the number of included studies, more large-sample, multicenter, double-blind, high-quality clinical randomized controlled trials are still needed in the future to further confirm the results of this research.

ObjectiveThis study aims to systematically evaluate the effect of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury and compare the effects of two different NIBS.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of NIBS on NP after spinal cord injury (SCI) were retrieved from the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM from inception to September 2021. The quality of the trials was assessed, and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane handbook of systematic review. Statistical analysis was conducted with Stata (version 16) and R software (version 4.0.2).ResultsA total of 17 studies involving 507 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that NIBS could reduce the pain score (SMD = −0.84, 95% CI −1.27 −0.40, P = 0.00) and the pain score during follow-up (SMD = −0.32, 95%CI −0.57 −0.07, P = 0.02), and the depression score of the NIBS group was not statistically significant than that of the control group (SMD = −0.43, 95%CI −0.89–0.02, P = 0.06). The network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of two different NIBS on the pain score was repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (P = 0.62) &gt; transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (P = 0.38).ConclusionNIBS can relieve NP after SCI. The effect of rTMS on NP is superior to that of tDCS. We suggest that the rTMS parameters are 80–120% resting motion threshold and 5–20 Hz, while the tDCS parameters are 2 mA and 20 min. However, it is necessary to carry out more large-scale, multicenter, double-blind, high-quality RCT to explore the efficacy and mechanism of NIBS for NP after SCI.

Purpose:Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is an indispensable and effective surgery for patients with primary Parkinson’s disease (PD). Nonetheless, its postoperative effects can be decided by many factors including the optimal programmed stimulation parameters. In this study, we analyzed the correlation between different postoperative programmed stimulation parameters and their efficacy after STN–DBS electrode implantation in patients with PD.Methods:A total of 87 patients underwent electrode implantation and completed at least one year follow-up. Then, various combinations of stimulation parameters, including stimulus intensity, frequency, and pulse width, were examined for their effects on the clinical improvement of the patients. Improvements in motor and nonmotor symptoms were analyzed using Mini-Mental State Examination, Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire-39, and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores before and after surgery.Results:We found significantly improved UPDRS scores, quality of life, and neuropsychiatric symptoms postoperatively considering the findings of the aforementioned stimulation parameters compared with those observed preoperatively.Conclusion:This study provides a better understanding on how programmed stimulation parameters help relieve PD symptoms and improve quality of life in patients with PD undergoing STN–DBS.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate variations in cortical activation in early and late Uygur-Chinese bilinguals from the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China. Methodology: During a semantic judgment task with visual stimulation by a single Chinese or Uygur word, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was performed. The fMRI data regarding activated cortical areas and volumes by both languages were analyzed.ResultsThe first language (L1) and second language (L2) activated language-related hemispheric regions, including the left inferior frontal and parietal cortices, and L1 specifically activated the left middle temporal gyrus. For both L1 and L2, cortical activation was greater in the left hemisphere, and there was no significant difference in the lateralization index (LI) between the two languages (p > 0.05). Although the total activated cortical areas were larger in early than late bilinguals, the activation volumes were not significantly different.ConclusionActivated brains areas in early and late fluent bilinguals largely overlapped. However, these areas were more scattered upon presentation of L2 than L1, and L1 had a more specific pattern of activation than L2. For both languages, the left hemisphere was dominant. We found that L2 proficiency level rather than age of acquisition had a greater influence on which brain areas were activated with semantic processing.