Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25972805›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2015

Inhibitory non-invasive brain stimulation to homologous language regions as an adjunct to speech and language therapy in post-stroke aphasia: a meta-analysis.

Begonya Otal, Manuel C Olma, Agnes Flöel, Ian Wellwood

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Advances in Neuromodulation Techniques for Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Comprehensive Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Targeted neurorehabilitation strategies in post-stroke aphasia.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Neuromodulation in post-stroke aphasia treatment.Current physical medicine and rehabilitation reports · 2020
    Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Begonya OtalCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Germany.
Manuel C OlmaCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Germany.
Agnes FlöelCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Germany ; Department of Neurology, NeuroCure Clinical Research Center, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Germany.
Ian WellwoodCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic communication impairment is common after stroke, and conventional speech and language therapy (SLT) strategies have limited effectiveness in post-stroke aphasia. Neurorehabilitation with non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (NIBS)-particularly repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)-may enhance the effects of SLT in selected patients. Applying inhibitory NIBS to specific homologous language regions may induce neural reorganization and reduce interhemispheric competition. This mini review highlights randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials using low-frequency rTMS or cathodal tDCS over the non-lesioned non-language dominant hemisphere and performs an exploratory meta-analysis of those trials considered combinable. Using a random-effects model, a meta-analysis of nine eligible trials involving 215 participants showed a significant mean effect size of 0.51 (95% CI = 0.24-0.79) for the main outcome "accuracy of naming" in language assessment. No heterogeneity was observed (I (2) = 0%). More multicenter RCTs with larger populations and homogenous intervention protocols are required to confirm these and the longer-term effects.

Indexed as

aphasianeurorehabilitationnon-invasive brain stimulationrTMSspeech and language therapystroketDCS

Identifiers

PMID25972805
PMCPMC4412051
OpenAlexW2041913298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.