ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2021
Excitatory and inhibitory responses to cervical root magnetic stimulation in healthy subjects.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Controversies and Clinical Applications of Non-Invasive Transspinal Magnetic Stimulation: A Critical Review and Exploratory Trial in Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo characterize direct and reflex hand muscle responses to cervical root magnetic stimulation (CRMS) in healthy volunteers during sustained voluntary contraction.
methodsIn 18 healthy volunteers, we recorded from the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle the responses to CRMS of progressively increasing intensity and level of muscle contraction. The compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and the silent period (SP) were compared to those obtained with plexus, midarm and wrist stimulation. Additionally, in a smaller number of subjects, we obtained the peristimulus time histogram (psth) of single motor unit firing in the FDI, examined the effects of vibration and recorded the modulation of sustained EMG activity in muscles of the lower limbs.
resultsIncreasing CRMS intensity led to larger CMAP with no relevant changes in SP1 or SP2, except for lower amplitude of the burst interrupting the silent period (BISP). Increasing the level of muscle contraction led to reduced CMAP, shorter SP duration and increased BISP amplitude. The psth analysis showed the underlying changes in the motor unit firing frequency that corresponded to the changes seen in the CMAP and the SP with surface recordings. Progressively distal stimulation led to CMAPs of shorter latency and increased amplitude, SPs of longer latency and shorter duration, and a BISP of longer latency. Vibration led to reduction of the SP. CRMS induced SPs in muscles of the lower limb.
conclusionsCRMS induces excitatory and inhibitory responses in hand muscles, fitting with the expected behavior of mixed nerve stimulation at very proximal sites. SIGNIFICANCE: Characterization of the effects of CRMS on hand muscles is of physiological and potentially clinical applicability, as it is a painless and reliable procedure.
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.