Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29867191›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2018

The effect of stimulation interval on plasticity following repeated blocks of intermittent theta burst stimulation.

Nga Yan Tse, Mitchell R Goldsworthy, Michael C Ridding, James P Coxon, Paul B Fitzgerald, Alex Fornito, Nigel C Rogasch

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Nga Yan TseBrain and Mental Health Research Hub, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, and Monash Biomedical Imaging, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Mitchell R GoldsworthyNeuromotor Plasticity and Development, Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Michael C RiddingNeuromotor Plasticity and Development, Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
James P CoxonSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2351-8489
Paul B FitzgeraldEpworth Healthcare, The Epworth Clinic and Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Alex FornitoBrain and Mental Health Research Hub, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, and Monash Biomedical Imaging, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nigel C RogaschBrain and Mental Health Research Hub, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, and Monash Biomedical Imaging, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. nigel.rogasch@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4484-1069

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed the effect of interval duration on the direction and magnitude of changes in cortical excitability and inhibition when applying repeated blocks of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) over motor cortex. 15 participants received three different iTBS conditions on separate days: single iTBS; repeated iTBS with a 5 minute interval (iTBS-5-iTBS); and with a 15 minute interval (iTBS-15-iTBS). Changes in cortical excitability and short-interval cortical inhibition (SICI) were assessed via motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) before and up to 60 mins following stimulation. iTBS-15-iTBS increased MEP amplitude for up to 60 mins post stimulation, whereas iTBS-5-iTBS decreased MEP amplitude. In contrast, MEP amplitude was not altered by single iTBS. Despite the group level findings, only 53% of individuals showed facilitated MEPs following iTBS-15-iTBS, and only 40% inhibited MEPs following iTBS-5-iTBS. Modulation of SICI did not differ between conditions. These results suggest interval duration between spaced iTBS plays an important role in determining the direction of plasticity on excitatory, but not inhibitory circuits in human motor cortex. While repeated iTBS can increase the magnitude of MEP facilitation/inhibition in some individuals compared to single iTBS, the response to repeated iTBS appears variable between individuals in this small sample.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, MotorMotor CortexNeuronal PlasticityTheta RhythmTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID29867191
PMCPMC5986739

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.