Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29946234›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2018

Variability and Predictors of Response to Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation: A TMS-EEG Study.

Lorenzo Rocchi, Jaime Ibáñez, Alberto Benussi, Ricci Hannah, Vishal Rawji, Elias Casula, John Rothwell

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-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.

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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Continuous Theta Burst to Supplementary Motor Area Modulates Groove.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Assessing the mechanisms of brain plasticity by transcranial magnetic stimulation.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Lorenzo RocchiSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jaime IbáñezSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alberto BenussiNeurology Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Ricci HannahSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Vishal RawjiSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Elias CasulaNon-invasive Brain Stimulation Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
John RothwellSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sobell House · GBUniversity College London · GBIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversity of Brescia · IT

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K01384X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) is a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation paradigm reported to decrease the excitability of the stimulated cortical area and which is thought to reflect a form of inhibitory synaptic plasticity. However, since its introduction, the effect of cTBS has shown a remarkable variability in its effects, which are often quantified by measuring the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Part of this inconsistency in experimental results might be due to an intrinsic variability of TMS effects caused by genetic or neurophysiologic factors. However, it is also possible that MEP only reflect the excitability of a sub-population of output neurons; resting EEG power and measures combining TMS and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) might represent a more thorough reflection of cortical excitability. The aim of the present study was to verify the robustness of several predictors of cTBS response, such as I wave recruitment and baseline MEP amplitude, and to test cTBS after-effects on multiple neurophysiologic measurements such as MEP, resting EEG power, local mean field power (LMFP), TMS-related spectral perturbation (TRSP), and inter-trial phase clustering (ITPC). As a result, we were not able to confirm either the expected decrease of MEP amplitude after cTBS or the ability of I wave recruitment and MEP amplitude to predict the response to cTBS. Resting EEG power, LMFP, TRSP, and ITPC showed a more consistent trend toward a decrease after cTBS. Overall, our data suggest that the effect of cTBS on corticospinal excitability is variable and difficult to predict with common electrophysiologic markers, while its effect might be clearer when probed with combined TMS and EEG.

Indexed as

electroencephalography (EEG)motor evoked potentials (MEPs)plasticitytheta-burst stimulationtime-frequency analysisTMS-EEGtranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID29946234
PMCPMC6006718
OpenAlexW2808282759

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.