2026-10-10T12:27:56Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/33970582 2026-09-23T04:48:20Z category_363 portal_316 item_type_3 month_year_09_2026

Table 7_Comparative effectiveness of non-invasive interventions for stage I post-stroke shoulder–hand syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.xlsx Xiao-Zhong Liu (21656021) Ruo-Yang Li (13955250) Ke-Yu Chen (13955247) De-Liang Zhu (17904317) Neurology and Neuromuscular Diseases network meta-analysis non-invasive randomized controlled trials shoulder hand syndrome stroke Background<p>To compare the effectiveness of non-invasive interventions for pain, upper-limb motor function, and activities of daily living in patients with stage I post-stroke shoulder–hand syndrome (SHS) using network meta-analysis.</p>Methods<p>Randomized controlled trials evaluating non-invasive interventions for stage I SHS were systematically retrieved. Outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS), Fugl–Meyer Assessment–Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), and Barthel Index (BI). Mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated.</p>Results<p>Thirty-six RCTs involving 2,769 participants were included. The VAS, FMA-UE, and BI networks included 24, 28, and 18 RCTs, respectively. Compared with conventional treatment (CT), VAS scores were significantly reduced by kinesiology taping (KT) (MD = −1.95, 95% CI − 2.85 to −1.05), air pressure therapy (AT) (MD = −2.30, −4.31 to −0.29), Traditional Chinese Medicine External Herbal Therapy (TCM-EHT) (MD = −1.36, −2.08 to −0.64), Traditional Chinese Medicine External Physical Stimulation (TCM-EPS) (MD = −1.43, −2.36 to −0.50), and moxibustion (MD = −1.52, −2.53 to −0.51). FMA-UE improved with TCM-EPS (SMD = 2.12, 0.03 to 4.21), TCM-EHT (SMD = 2.07, 0.62 to 3.52), and KT (SMD = 2.32, 0.04 to 4.61). BI improved with TCM-EHT (SMD = 3.64, 1.76 to 5.51), TCM-EPS (SMD = 2.55, 0.60 to 4.50), and KT (SMD = 1.98, 0.27 to 3.70). However, 95% prediction intervals for all statistically significant comparisons crossed the null. AT, KT, and TCM-EHT ranked highest for VAS, FMA-UE, and BI, respectively. No statistically significant global inconsistency was detected, although localized disagreement was identified for CT versus TCM-EHT in the VAS network.</p>Conclusion<p>Non-invasive interventions showed outcome-specific potential benefits, but no intervention demonstrated consistent superiority across all outcomes. Although AT and KT ranked favorably for pain and KT, TCM-EPS, and TCM-EHT for functional outcomes, wide prediction intervals indicated substantial uncertainty. Given methodological limitations and imprecision, findings should be interpreted cautiously and confirmed by adequately powered multicentre RCTs.</p>Systematic review registration<p>The publicly accessible registration record is available through the PROSPERO database: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251276361. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251276361).</p> 2026-09-23T04:48:20Z Dataset Dataset 10.3389/fneur.2026.1932931.s007 https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Table_7_Comparative_effectiveness_of_non-invasive_interventions_for_stage_I_post-stroke_shoulder_hand_syndrome_a_network_meta-analysis_of_randomized_controlled_trials_xlsx/33970582 CC BY 4.0