Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32654060›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurology2021

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for stroke with spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peng Xu, Yan Huang, Jie Wang, Xu An, Tianyou Zhang, Yuechun Li, Jun Zhang, Baojun Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke spasticity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. [The research progress on the improvement effect of repeated peripheral magnetic stimulation on upper limb and lower limb spasm after stroke].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peng Xu *Department of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China.
Yan Huang *Department of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China.
Jie WangDepartment of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China.
Xu AnDepartment of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China.
Tianyou ZhangDepartment of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China.
Yuechun LiDepartment of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China.
Jun ZhangDepartment of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China. zhangjun_na@sina.com.
Baojun WangDepartment of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China. jbwwbj@126.com.
Baotou Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) can be used to manage post-stroke spasticity, but a meta-analysis of the recent randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. Our aim is to perform a meta-analysis of the RCTs that investigated the efficacy of rTMS in patients with post-stroke spasticity. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible papers published up to February 2020. The primary outcome was the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), measured as the effect of rTMS compared with controls and after rTMS (using a change score calculated separately in the active and sham treatment groups). Finally, five papers and eight data sets were included. rTMS had no significant benefit on MAS in patients with post-stroke spasticity compared to sham treatment (WMD = - 0.29, 95% CI - 0.58, 0.00; P = 0.051). When analyzing the change score in the treatment groups, a significant effect of rTMS was observed (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.51, - 0.04; P = 0.024). When analyzing the change score in the sham treatment groups, no significant effect of sham treatment was observed, indicating no placebo effect (WMD = 0.32, 95% CI: - 0.40, 1.04; P = 0.387). We included the sample size, year of publication, percentage of male patients, and age difference in each study as covariates, and performed a meta-regression. The results showed no association between these variables and the MAS. Compared with sham stimulation, rTMS did not show a significant reduction in MAS for the patients who experienced post-stroke spasticity, but the patients reported a better outcome in MAS on a before-after scenario.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansMaleMuscle SpasticityPlacebo EffectTranscranial Magnetic StimulationMeta-analysisRandomized-controlled trialsSpasticityStrokeTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID32654060
OpenAlexW3041688620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.