Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28264713›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

The number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rocco Cavaleri, Siobhan M Schabrun, Lucy S Chipchase

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04011670 (Neuroplastic Alterations of the Motor Cortex by Caffeine), which is not on this map. Cited by 65 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT04011670 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Neuroplastic Alterations of the Motor Cortex by Caffeine: Differences Between Caffeine and Non-caffeine Users and Influence of Vigilance During Stimulation

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Medical Center GoettingenRan2019 to 2019Enrolled30ConditionsCortical Excitability, Brain Stimulation, CaffeineArms200 mg caffeine tablet, Non-active tablet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Combining transcranial direct current stimulation with aerobic exercise to optimize cortical priming in stroke.Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme · 2021
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rocco CavaleriBrain Rehabilitation and Neuroplasticity Unit, School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2560, Australia.
Siobhan M SchabrunBrain Rehabilitation and Neuroplasticity Unit, School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2560, Australia.
Lucy S ChipchaseBrain Rehabilitation and Neuroplasticity Unit, School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2560, Australia. L.Chipchase@westernsydney.edu.au.
Western Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive means by which to assess the structure and function of the central nervous system. Current practices involve the administration of multiple stimuli over target areas of a participant's scalp. Decreasing the number of stimuli delivered during TMS assessments would improve time efficiency and decrease participant demand. However, doing so may also compromise the within- or between-session reliability of the technique. The aim of this review was therefore to determine the minimum number of TMS stimuli required to reliably measure (i) corticomotor excitability of a target muscle at a single cranial site and (ii) topography of the primary motor cortical representation of a target muscle across multiple cranial sites.

methodsDatabase searches were performed to identify diagnostic reliability studies published before May 2015. Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies employing single-pulse TMS to measure (i) the corticomotor excitability at a single cranial site or (ii) the topographic cortical organisation of a target muscle across a number of cranial sites. Outcome measures included motor evoked potential amplitude, map volume, number of active map sites and location of the map centre of gravity.

resultsOnly studies comparing the reliability of varying numbers of stimuli delivered to a single cranial site were identified. Five was the lowest number of stimuli that could be delivered to produce excellent within-session motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95). Ten stimuli were required to achieve consistent between-session MEP amplitudes among healthy participants (ICC = 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95). However, between-session reliability was influenced by participant characteristics, intersession intervals and target musculature.

conclusionsFurther exploration of the reliability of multi-site TMS mapping is required. Five stimuli produce reliable MEP recordings during single-site TMS investigations involving one session. For single-site analyses involving multiple sessions, ten stimuli are recommended when investigating corticomotor excitability in healthy participants or the upper limb musculature. However, greater numbers of stimuli may be required for clinical populations or assessments involving the lower limb. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015024579.

Indexed as

AdultAgedEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotor CortexReproducibility of ResultsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationCortical reorganisationMotor cortexReliabilitySystematic reviewTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID28264713
PMCPMC5340029
OpenAlexW2594381151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.