Objective: This 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.Methods: Randomized 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).Results: A 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) > transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (P = 0.38).Conclusion: NIBS 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.

Background: In recent years, Chinese and international studies have reported that traditional Chinese exercises (TCEs) have good therapeutic effects on pulmonary function, endurance capacity, and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, only a few studies have reported the differences in the efficacy of different TCEs in the treatment of COPD.Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the effects of five TCEs on patients with COPD, including Taijiquan (TJQ), Baduanjin (BDJ), Liuzijue (LZJ), Wuqinxi (WQX), and Yijinjing (YJJ).Methods: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TCEs for patients with COPD were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Excerpt Medica Database (EMBASE), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine database (CBM), China Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang database. The search period was from the establishment of each database to August 16, 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the Cochrane handbook of systematic review, and the network meta-analysis was conducted with R 4.0.2 (Ross Ihaka, Auckland, New Zealand) and ADDIS 1.16.8 (Gert vsn Valkenhoef, Groningen, Netherlands). The effect size was evaluated using the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).Results: A total of 53 RCTs involving 3,924 patients were included. The network meta-analysis results showed that WQX was the most effective in improving FEV₁/FVC% score and 6-MWT score. The difference was statistically significant (MD = 8.62, 95% CI 4.46 to 13.04, P < 0.05), (MD = 74.29, 95% CI 47.67 to 102.24, P < 0.05). However, YJJ was the most effective in reducing the CAT score, and the difference was statistically significant (MD = −8.38, 95% CI −13.24 to −3.28, P < 0.05).Conclusion: The existing evidence shows that WQX has advantages over other TCEs in improving pulmonary function and endurance capacity in patients with COPD, while YJJ has advantages in improving the quality of life. Although TCEs show no significant adverse effects, more large-scale, double-blind, and high-quality RCTs are needed in the future to verify the findings of this study.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021293640.