ArticlePloS one2017
Corticospinal excitability measurements using transcranial magnetic stimulation are valid with intramuscular electromyography.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02957942 (Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Spasmodic Dysphonia), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Spasmodic Dysphonia
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short Interval Intracortical Inhibition Responses to Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Under Multiple Interstimulus Intervals and Conditioning Intensities.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2018Article
- Shoulder Taping and Neuromuscular Control.Journal of athletic training · 2018Article
- Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Modulates Corticospinal Excitability During Motor Training.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional magnet resonance imaging evaluation of adductor spasmodic dysphonia during phonation.Brain stimulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMuscular targets that are deep or inaccessible to surface electromyography (sEMG) require intrinsic recording using fine-wire electromyography (fEMG). It is unknown if fEMG validly record cortically evoked muscle responses compared to sEMG. The purpose of this investigation was to establish the validity and agreement of fEMG compared to sEMG to quantify typical transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) measures pre and post repetitive TMS (rTMS). The hypotheses were that fEMG would demonstrate excellent validity and agreement compared with sEMG. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn ten healthy volunteers, paired pulse and cortical silent period (CSP) TMS measures were collected before and after 1200 pulses of 1Hz rTMS to the motor cortex. Data were simultaneously recorded with sEMG and fEMG in the first dorsal interosseous. Concurrent validity (r and rho) and agreement (Tukey mean-difference) were calculated.
resultsfEMG quantified corticospinal excitability with good to excellent validity compared to sEMG data at both pretest (r = 0.77-0.97) and posttest (r = 0.83-0.92). Pairwise comparisons indicated no difference between sEMG and fEMG for all outcomes; however, Tukey mean-difference plots display increased variance and questionable agreement for paired pulse outcomes. CSP displayed the highest estimates of validity and agreement. Paired pulse MEP responses recorded with fEMG displayed reduced validity, agreement and less sensitivity to changes in MEP amplitude compared to sEMG. Change scores following rTMS were not significantly different between sEMG and fEMG.
conclusionfEMG electrodes are a valid means to measure CSP and paired pulse MEP responses. CSP displays the highest validity estimates, while caution is warranted when assessing paired pulse responses with fEMG. Corticospinal excitability and neuromodulatory aftereffects from rTMS may be assessed using fEMG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.