Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31598137›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2019

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in stroke rehabilitation: review of the current evidence and pitfalls.

Francesco Fisicaro, Giuseppe Lanza, Alfio Antonio Grasso, Giovanni Pennisi, Rita Bella, Walter Paulus, Manuela Pennisi

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

Review in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
12.5field-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

117 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 213 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Comparative efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation protocols on upper-extremity motor function and activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

57 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Francesco FisicaroDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies, Section of Neurosciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Giuseppe LanzaDepartment of Surgery and Medical-Surgery Specialties, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 78, Catania, 95125, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5659-662X
Alfio Antonio GrassoDepartment of Surgery and Medical-Surgery Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Giovanni PennisiDepartment of Surgery and Medical-Surgery Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Rita BellaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies, Section of Neurosciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Walter PaulusDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Medical Center, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany.
Manuela PennisiDepartment of Biomedical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
University of Catania · ITUniversity of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute brain ischemia causes changes in several neural networks and related cortico-subcortical excitability, both in the affected area and in the apparently spared contralateral hemisphere. The modulation of these processes through modern techniques of noninvasive brain stimulation, namely repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), has been proposed as a viable intervention that could promote post-stroke clinical recovery and functional independence. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the current evidence from the literature on the efficacy of rTMS applied to different clinical and rehabilitative aspects of stroke patients. A total of 32 meta-analyses published until July 2019 were selected, focusing on the effects on motor function, manual dexterity, walking and balance, spasticity, dysphagia, aphasia, unilateral neglect, depression, and cognitive function after a stroke. Only conventional rTMS protocols were considered in this review, and meta-analyses focusing on theta burst stimulation only were excluded. Overall, both HF-rTMS and LF-rTMS have been shown to be safe and well-tolerated. In addition, the current literature converges on the positive effect of rTMS in the rehabilitation of all clinical manifestations of stroke, except for spasticity and cognitive impairment, where definitive evidence of efficacy cannot be drawn. However, routine use of a specific paradigm of stimulation cannot be recommended yet due to a significant level of heterogeneity of the studies in terms of protocols to be set and outcome measures that have to be used. Future studies need to preliminarily evaluate the most promising protocols before going on to multicenter studies with large cohorts of patients in order to achieve a definitive translation into daily clinical practice.

Indexed as

neuroplasticityneurorehabilitationnoninvasive brain stimulationstroke

Identifiers

PMID31598137
PMCPMC6763938
OpenAlexW2976572211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.