ArticleExperimental brain research2021
Measurement error and reliability of TMS metrics collected from biceps and triceps in individuals with chronic incomplete tetraplegia.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Stratification algorithm for repetitive TMS in stroke (START): Results from an exploratory crossover study.Journal of the neurological sciences · 2025Article
- Corticospinal Tract Sparing in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the assessment of spinal cord injury: Current status and future directions.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used to investigate corticomotor neurophysiology associated with functional recovery in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). There is insufficient evidence about test-retest measurement properties of TMS in SCI. Therefore, we investigated test-retest agreement and reliability of TMS metrics representing corticomotor excitability, output, gain, map (representation), and inhibition in individuals with cervical SCI. We collected TMS metrics from biceps and triceps muscles because of the relevance of this proximal muscle pair to the cervical SCI population. Twelve individuals with chronic C3-C6 SCI participated in two TMS sessions separated by ≥ 2 weeks. Measurement agreement was evaluated using t tests, Bland-Altman limits of agreement and relative standard error of measurement (SEM%), while reliability was investigated using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). We calculated the smallest detectable change for all TMS metrics. All TMS metrics except antero-posterior map coordinates and corticomotor inhibition were in agreement upon repeated measurement though limits of agreement were generally large. Measures of corticomotor excitability, output and medio-lateral map coordinates had superior agreement (SEM% < 10). Metrics representing corticomotor excitability, output, and inhibition had good-to-excellent reliability (ICC/CCC > 0.75). The smallest detectable change for TMS metrics was generally high for a single individual, but this value reduced substantially with increase in sample size. We recommend use of corticomotor excitability and recruitment curve area owing to their superior measurement properties. A modest group size (20 or above) yields more stable measurements, which may favor use of TMS metrics in group level modulation after SCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.