The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Brain‐computer interfaces ( BCI s) can provide sensory feedback of ongoing brain oscillations, enabling stroke survivors to modulate their sensorimotor rhythms purposefully. A number of recent clinical studies indicate that repeated use of such BCI s might trigger neurological recovery and hence improvement in motor function. Here, we provide a first meta‐analysis evaluating the clinical effectiveness of BCI ‐based post‐stroke motor rehabilitation. Trials were identified using MEDLINE , CENTRAL , PED ro and by inspection of references in several review articles. We selected randomized controlled trials that used BCI s for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation and provided motor impairment scores before and after the intervention. A random‐effects inverse variance method was used to calculate the summary effect size. We initially identified 524 articles and, after removing duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 473 articles. We found 26 articles corresponding to BCI clinical trials, of these, there were nine studies that involved a total of 235 post‐stroke survivors that fulfilled the inclusion criterion (randomized controlled trials that examined motor performance as an outcome measure) for the meta‐analysis. Motor improvements, mostly quantified by the upper limb Fugl‐Meyer Assessment ( FMA ‐ UE ), exceeded the minimal clinically important difference ( MCID =5.25) in six BCI studies, while such improvement was reached only in three control groups. Overall, the BCI training was associated with a standardized mean difference of 0.79 (95% CI : 0.37 to 1.20) in FMA ‐ UE compared to control conditions, which is in the range of medium to large summary effect size. In addition, several studies indicated BCI ‐induced functional and structural neuroplasticity at a subclinical level. This suggests that BCI technology could be an effective intervention for post‐stroke upper limb rehabilitation. However, more studies with larger sample size are required to increase the reliability of these results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Brain–computer interface–based communication in the completely locked-in State
Chaudhary, U., Xia, B., Silvoni, S., Cohen, L. G., & Birbaumer, N. (2017) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002593 · Cited by 235
Self-citationRetractedStatistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,657
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695
Cited by
BCI for stroke rehabilitation: motor and beyond
Mane, R., Chouhan, T., & Guan, C. (2020) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aba162 · Cited by 466
Consumer Grade EEG Measuring Sensors as Research Tools: A Review
Sawangjai, P., Hompoonsup, S., Leelaarporn, P., Kongwudhikunakorn, S., & Wilaiprasitporn, T. (2020) · IEEE Sensors Journal · doi:10.1109/jsen.2019.2962874 · Cited by 267
Kim, W.-S., Cho, S., Ku, J., Kim, Y., Lee, K., Hwang, H.-J., & Paik, N.-J. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm9103369 · Cited by 226
Metadata
- Authors
- Cervera, M. A., Soekadar, S. R., Ushiba, J., Millán, J. D. R., Liu, M., Birbaumer, N., & Garipelli, G.
- Venue
- Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-03-25
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 651-663
- ISSN
- 2328-9503 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2780011893
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 32.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/acn3.544
- The paper
- Cervera, M. A., Soekadar, S. R., Ushiba, J., Millán, J. D. R., Liu, M., Birbaumer, N., & Garipelli, G. (2018). Brain‐computer interfaces for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta‐analysis. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.544
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.