Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30907429›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of physiology2019

Cerebellar repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation restores pharyngeal brain activity and swallowing behaviour after disruption by a cortical virtual lesion.

Ayodele Sasegbon, Masahiro Watanabe, Andre Simons, Emilia Michou, Dipesh H Vasant, Jin Magara, Philip M Bath, John Rothwell, Makoto Inoue, Shaheen Hamdy

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Cerebellar Prediction and Feeding Behaviour.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ayodele SasegbonGastrointestinal (GI) Sciences, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Salford Royal Hospital (part of the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Center (MAHSC)), Salford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2050-0726
Masahiro WatanabeGastrointestinal (GI) Sciences, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Salford Royal Hospital (part of the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Center (MAHSC)), Salford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4638-6805
Andre SimonsGastrointestinal (GI) Sciences, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Salford Royal Hospital (part of the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Center (MAHSC)), Salford, UK.
Emilia MichouGastrointestinal (GI) Sciences, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Salford Royal Hospital (part of the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Center (MAHSC)), Salford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7245-0882
Dipesh H VasantGastrointestinal (GI) Sciences, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Salford Royal Hospital (part of the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Center (MAHSC)), Salford, UK.
Jin MagaraDivision of Dysphagia Rehabilitation, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan.
Philip M BathStroke, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
John RothwellSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, University College London, London, UK.
Makoto InoueDivision of Dysphagia Rehabilitation, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-6503-2973
Shaheen HamdyGastrointestinal (GI) Sciences, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Salford Royal Hospital (part of the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Center (MAHSC)), Salford, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBNiigata University · JPSobell House · GBTechnological Educational Institute of Western Greece · GRUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/P006183/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key pointsDespite evidence that the human cerebellum has an important role in swallowing neurophysiology, the effects of cerebellar stimulation on swallowing in the disrupted brain have not been explored. In this study, for the first time, the application of cerebellar neurostimulation is characterized in a human model of disrupted swallowing (using a cortical virtual lesion). It is demonstrated that cerebellar stimulation can reverse the suppressed activity in the cortical swallowing system and restore swallowing function in a challenging behavioural task, suggesting the findings may have important therapeutic implications. ABSTRACT: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can alter neuronal activity within the brain with therapeutic potential. Low frequency stimulation to the 'dominant' cortical swallowing projection induces a 'virtual-lesion' transiently suppressing cortical excitability and disrupting swallowing behaviour. Here, we compared the ability of ipsi-lesional, contra-lesional and sham cerebellar rTMS to reverse the effects of a 'virtual-lesion' in health. Two groups of healthy participants (n = 15/group) were intubated with pharyngeal catheters. Baseline pharyngeal motor evoked potentials (PMEPs) and swallowing performance (reaction task) were measured. Participants received 10 min of 1 Hz rTMS to the pharyngeal motor cortex which elicited the largest PMEPs to suppress cortical activity and disrupt swallowing behaviour. Over six visits, participants were randomized to receive 250 pulses of 10 Hz cerebellar rTMS to the ipsi-lesional side, contra-lesional side or sham while assessing PMEP amplitude or swallowing performance for an hour afterwards. Compared to sham, active cerebellar rTMS, whether administered ipsi-lesionally (P = 0.011) or contra-lesionally (P = 0.005), reversed the inhibitory effects of the cortical 'virtual-lesion' on PMEPs and swallowing accuracy (ipsi-lesional, P < 0.001, contra-lesional, P < 0.001). Cerebellar rTMS was able to reverse the disruptive effects of a 'virtual lesion'. These findings provide evidence for developing cerebellar rTMS into a treatment for post-stroke dysphagia.

Indexed as

DeglutitionAdultCerebellumEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexPharynxTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30907429
PMCPMC6487931
OpenAlexW2927394617

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.