Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34846585›Full record

ReviewNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022

Transcranial magnetic stimulation implementation on stroke prognosis.

Stella Karatzetzou, Dimitrios Tsiptsios, Aikaterini Terzoudi, Nikolaos Aggeloussis, Konstantinos Vadikolias

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurological disorders. Updated report of an IFCN committee.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Copeptin Implementation on Stroke Prognosis.Neurology international · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stella KaratzetzouNeurology Department, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Dimitrios TsiptsiosNeurology Department, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece. tsiptsios.dimitrios@yahoo.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1601-8788
Aikaterini TerzoudiNeurology Department, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Nikolaos AggeloussisDepartment of Physical Education and Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece.
Konstantinos VadikoliasNeurology Department, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0484-369X
Democritus University of Thrace · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStroke represents a major cause of functional disability with increasing prevalence. Thus, it is imperative that stroke prognosis be both timely and valid. Up to today, several biomarkers have been investigated in an attempt to forecast stroke survivors' potential for motor recovery, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) being among them.

methodsA literature research of two databases (MEDLINE and Scopus) was conducted in order to trace all relevant studies published between 1990 and 2021 that focused on the potential utility of TMS implementation on stroke prognosis. Only full-text articles published in the English language were included.

resultsThirty-nine articles have been traced and included in this review. DISCUSSION: Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) recording is indicative of a favorable prognosis concerning the motor recovery of upper and lower extremities' weakness, swallowing and speech difficulties, and the patient's general functional outcome. On the contrary, MEP absence is usually associated with poor prognosis. Relative correlations have also been made among other TMS variants (motor threshold, MEP amplitude, central motor conduction time) and the expected recovery rate. Overall, TMS represents a non-invasive, fast, safe, and reproducible prognostic tool poststroke that could resolve prognostic uncertainties in cases of stroke.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationEvoked Potentials, MotorHumansPrognosisSurvivorsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationCerebrovascular diseaseMotor evoked potentialsPrognosisRecoveryStrokeTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34846585
OpenAlexW3215102745

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.