Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24422912›Full record

Trial reportCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2014

Differential effect of conditioning sequences in coupling inhibitory/facilitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for poststroke motor recovery.

Chih-Pin Wang, Po-Yi Tsai, Tsui Fen Yang, Kuang-Yao Yang, Chien-Chih Wang

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03012204 (Series Study About the rTMS Effects on the Recovery of Limb Motor Dysfunction Due to Cerebral Vascular Disease, Part 1), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03012204 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Series Study About the rTMS Effects on the Recovery of Limb Motor Dysfunction Due to Cerebral Vascular Disease, Part 1: Comparing the Effects of Various Combinations Between 6 Hertz(Hz) rTMS & LFrTMS.

TypeinterventionalSponsorBeijing HospitalRan2017 to 2018Enrolled120ConditionsCerebrovascular DiseaseArmsreal LFrTMS at unaffected M1, real primed LFrTMS at unaffected M1, combined rTMS at both M1, all sham stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Neurostimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chih-Pin WangDepartment of Emergency, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, China.
Po-Yi Tsai
Tsui Fen Yang
Kuang-Yao Yang
Chien-Chih Wang
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWMackay Memorial Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile neuromodulation through unihemispheric repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has shown promise for the motor recovery of stroke patients, the effectiveness of the coupling of different rTMS protocols remains unclear.

aimsWe aimed to test the long-term efficacy of this strategy with different applying sequences and to identify the electrophysiological correlates of motor improvements to the paretic hand.

resultsIn our sham-controlled, double-blinded parallel study, 48 stroke patients (2-6 months poststroke) were randomly allocated to three groups. Group A underwent 20-session rTMS conditioning initiated with 10-session 1 Hz rTMS over the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1), followed by 10-session intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) consequently over the ipsilesional M1; Group B underwent the same two paradigms but in reverse; and Group C received sham stimulation that was identical to Group A. We tested cortical excitability and motor assessments at the baseline, postpriming rTMS, postconsequent rTMS, and at 3-months follow-up. Group A manifested greater improvement than Group B in Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Wolf Motor Function testing (WMFT) score, and muscle strength (P = 0.001-0.02) post the priming rTMS. After the consequent rTMS, Group A continued to present a superior outcome than Group B in FMA (P = 0.015) and WMFT score (P = 0.008) with significant behavior-electrophysiological correlation.

conclusionsConditioning the contralesional M1 prior to ipsilesional iTBS was found to be optimal for enhancing hand function, and this effect persisted for at least 3 months. Early modulation within 6 months poststroke rebalances interhemispheric competition and appears to be a feasible time window for rTMS intervention.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDouble-Blind MethodEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFunctional LateralityHandHand StrengthHemiplegiaHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMotor ActivityCoupling stimulationFacilitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationInhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationMotor recoveryStroke

Identifiers

PMID24422912
PMCPMC6493039
OpenAlexW2056338323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.