ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2022
Impact of operator experience on transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Neuronavigation for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Mood Disorders: Technical Foundation, Advances, and Emerging Tools.Human brain mapping · 2025Review
- MRgFUS thalamotomy for the treatment of tremor: evaluation of learning curve and operator's experience impact on the procedural and clinical outcome.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the impact of an operator's experience on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) measurement.
methodsOperator B (beginner), operator E (expert), and 30 healthy participants joined the study consisting of two experiments. In each experiment, each operator performed a TMS protocol on each participant in a random order.
resultsCompared with operator E, operator B exhibited higher resting motor threshold (RMT) in experiment I (60.1 ± 13.0 vs. 57.4 ± 10.9% maximal stimulation output, p = 0.017) and the difference disappeared in experiment II (p = 0.816). In 1-mV motor evoked potential (MEP) measurement, operator B exhibited higher standard deviation indicating lower consistency in experiment I compared with experiment II (1.05 ± 0.40 vs. 1.05 ± 0.16 mV with unequal variances, p = 0.001) and had poor intrarater reliability between the experiments (intraclass correlation coefficient = -0.130). There was no difference in the results of active motor threshold, silent period, paired-pulse stimulation, or continuous theta burst stimulation between the operators.
conclusionsAn operator's experience in TMS may affect the results of RMT measurement. With practice, a beginner may choose a more precise stimulation location and have higher consistency in 1-mV MEP measurement. SIGNIFICANCE: We recommend that a beginner needs to practice for precise stimulation locations before conducting a trial or clinical practice.
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.