Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30940870›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2019

A Pilot Randomised Double-Blind Study of the Tolerability and efficacy of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Persistent Post-Concussion Syndrome.

Zahra Moussavi, Abdelbaset Suleiman, Grant Rutherford, Omid Ranjbar Pouya, Zeinab Dastgheib, Weijia Zhang, Jennifer Salter, Xikui Wang, Behzad Mansouri, Brian Lithgow

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

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Concussion: A Comprehensive Review of Current Evidence.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Zahra MoussaviBiomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Zahra.Moussavi@umanitoba.ca.
Abdelbaset SuleimanBiomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Grant RutherfordBiomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Omid Ranjbar PouyaBiomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Zeinab DastgheibBiomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2619-3678
Weijia ZhangStatistics Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Jennifer SalterRiverview Health Centre, Winnipeg, Canada.
Xikui WangStatistics Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4157-396X
Behzad MansouriBiomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Brian LithgowBiomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
University of Manitoba · CARiverview Hospital · CAHealth Sciences Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) on persistent post-concussion syndrome (PCS). The study design was a randomized (coin toss), placebo controlled, and double-blind study. Thirty-seven participants with PCS were assessed for eligibility; 22 were randomised and 18 completed the study requirements. Half the participants with PCS were given an Active rTMS intervention and the other half given Sham rTMS over 3 weeks. Follow ups were at the end of treatment and at 30 and 60 days. The primary outcome measure was the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ3 & RPQ13). The results indicate participants with more recent injuries (<12 month), who received Active rTMS, showed significant improvements compared to those of: 1) the same subgroup who received Sham, and 2) those with a longer duration of injury (>14 months) who received Active rTMS. This improvement predominantly manifested in RPQ13 in the follow up periods 1 and 2 months after the intervention (RPQ13 change (mean ± SD): at 1 month, Active = -21.8 ± 6.6, Sham = -2.2 ± 9.8; at 2 months, Active = -21.2 ± 5.3, Sham = -5.4 ± 13.7). No improvement was found in the subgroup with longer duration injuries. The results support rTMS as a tolerable and potentially effective treatment option for individuals with a recent (<1 year) concussion.

Indexed as

AdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsPost-Concussion SyndromeTime FactorsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30940870
PMCPMC6445141
OpenAlexW2931955613

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.