Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35499630›Full record

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

Evaluation of rTMS in patients with poststroke aphasia: a systematic review and focused meta-analysis.

Mehrnaz Gholami, Nooshin Pourbaghi, Samaneh Taghvatalab

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. The nonlinear trajectory of post-stroke aphasia recovery.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Targeted neurorehabilitation strategies in post-stroke aphasia.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Reversing the Ruin: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Restoration After Stroke.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2022
    Review
  18. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mehrnaz GholamiDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran. dr.m_gholami@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9842-6629
Nooshin PourbaghiDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran.
Samaneh TaghvatalabDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran.
Institute for Cognitive Science Studies · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IRSociety for Neuroscience · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAphasia-acquired loss of the ability to understand or express language-is a common and debilitating neurological consequence of stroke. Evidence suggests that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can significantly improve language outcomes in patients with aphasia. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been reported to improve naming in chronic stroke patients with nonfluent aphasia since 2005.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of TMS treatment studies in patients with aphasia. Eight electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Journals@Ovid, and clinicaltrials.gov) were searched for articles. Relevant studies were further evaluated, and studies that met inclusion criteria were reviewed. The searches were limited to human studies written in English and published between January 1960 and January 2020. In keeping with the main objective of this review, we included all studies that carried out treatment using rTMS in stroke patients with aphasia, regardless of the trial (or experimental) design of the study. Studies that implemented between-subject or randomized controlled (RCT) design, cross-over trials, and within-subject or pre-post trials were all included. Standard mean difference (SMD) for changes in picture naming accuracy was estimated.

resultsThe literature search yielded 423 studies. Fifty articles were further evaluated to be included. Eleven met all inclusion criteria and were chosen for review. Eleven eligible studies involving 242 stroke patients were identified in this meta-analysis. Further analyses demonstrated prominent effects for the naming subtest (SMD = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.71, p = 0.01), with heterogeneity (I

conclusionsThere are some strong studies evaluating the efficacy of rTMS in stroke patients but further research is required to fully establish the usefulness of this treatment. This meta-analysis indicates a clinically positive effect of rTMS with or without speech and language therapy (SLT) for patients with aphasia following stroke in overall language function and expressive language, including naming, repetition, writing, and comprehension. Low-frequency (1 Hz) rTMS over the unaffected hemisphere is effective and compatible with the concept of interhemispheric inhibition. Moreover, the treatment of 1 Hz rTMS for patients with aphasia after stroke was safe.

Indexed as

AphasiaStrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansSpeech TherapyTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAphasiaLanguage recoveryMeta-analysisNeurorehabilitationrTMSStroke

Identifiers

PMID35499630
OpenAlexW4225264062

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.