ArticleBrain sciences2022
Finding the Way to Improve Motor Recovery of Patients with Spinal Cord Lesions: A Case-Control Pilot Study on a Novel Neuromodulation Approach.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic Rehabilitation in Spinal Cord Injury: Neurophysiological Basis and Severity-Based Clinical Framework.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- The Role of Innovation Technology in the Rehabilitation of Patients Affected by Huntington's Disease: A Scoping Review.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- The PI3K/AKT signalling pathway in inflammation, cell death and glial scar formation after traumatic spinal cord injury: Mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities.Cell proliferation · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted rehabilitation (RAR) and non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are interventions that, both individually and combined, can significantly enhance motor performance after spinal cord injury (SCI). We sought to determine whether repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with active transvertebral direct current stimulation (tvDCS) (namely, NIBS) in association with RAR (RAR + NIBS) improves lower extremity motor function more than RAR alone in subjects with motor incomplete SCI (iSCI). Fifteen adults with iSCI received one daily session of RAR+NIBS in the early afternoon, six sessions weekly, for eight consecutive weeks. Outcome measures included the 6 min walk test (6MWT), the 10 m walk test (10MWT), the timed up and go (TUG) to test mobility and balance, the Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI II), the Functional Independence Measure-Locomotion (FIM-L), the manual muscle testing for lower extremity motor score (LEMS), the modified Ashworth scale for lower limbs (MAS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The data of these subjects were compared with those of 20 individuals matched for clinical and demographic features who previously received the same amount or RAR without NIBS (RAR - NIBS). All patients completed the trial, and none reported any side effects either during or following the training. The 10MWT improved in both groups, but the increase was significantly greater following RAR + NIBS than RAR - NIBS. The same occurred for the FIM-L, LEMS, and WISCI II. No significant differences were appreciable concerning the 6MWT and TUG. Conversely, RAR - NIBS outperformed RAR + NIBS regarding the MAS and VAS. Pairing tvDCS with rTMS during RAR can improve lower extremity motor function more than RAR alone can do. Future research with a larger sample size is recommended to determine longer-term effects on motor function and activities of daily living.
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.