SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022
Comparative Efficacy of Different Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Protocols for Stroke: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Parkinson's Disease With Depression: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Model-Based Network Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of different frequencies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on sleep disorders and depression in patients with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Theta burst stimulation: what role does it play in stroke rehabilitation? A systematic review of the existing evidence.BMC neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of different repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols for lower extremity motor function in stroke patients: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on lower extremity motor function and optimal parameters in stroke patients with different stages of stroke: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with abdominal acupuncture on lower limb motor function and balance in post-stroke hemiplegia: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Trial
- Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Upper Limb Motor Function and Serum Lipid Metabolomics in Patients With Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Study.Brain and behavior · 2025Trial
- Multiscale Mechanisms that Underlie Intermittent Theta-burst Stimulation in Post-stroke Motor Recovery: From Molecular Signaling to Network Reorganization.Translational stroke research · 2026Review
- How to Improve Cognitive Flexibility: Evidence From Noninvasive Neuromodulation Techniques.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Review
- Effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation on upper limb function in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- The stratified effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in upper limb motor impairment recovery after stroke: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Determining the Optimal Stimulation Sessions for TMS-Induced Recovery of Upper Extremity Motor Function Post Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Current evidence, clinical applications, and future directions of transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment for ischemic stroke.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex in stroke survivors-more than motor rehabilitation: A mini-review.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Review
- The safety of ipsilateral high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in brain tumour patients.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proven to be effective in the upper limb motor function and activities of daily living (ADL), the therapeutic effects of different stimulation protocols have not been effectively compared. To fill this gap, this study carried out the comparison of the upper limb motor function and ADL performance of patients with stroke through a network meta-analysis. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the rTMS therapy for stroke were searched from various databases, including PubMed, web of science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Wanfang database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP information (www.cqvip.com). The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to January 2021. Meanwhile, five independent researchers were responsible for the study selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation. The outcome measures included Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Modified Barthel Index (MBI), the National Institute of Health stroke scale (NIHSS), and adverse reactions. The Gemtc 0.14.3 software based on the Bayesian model framework was used for network meta-analysis, and funnel plots and network diagram plots were conducted using Stata14.0 software. Results: Ninety-five studies and 5,016 patients were included ultimately. The intervention measures included were as follows: placebo, intermittent theta-burst stimulation (ITBS), continuous theta-burst stimulation (CTBS),1 Hz rTMS,3-5 Hz rTMS, and ≥10 Hz rTMS. The results of the network meta-analysis show that different rTMS protocols were superior to placebo in terms of UE-FMA, NIHSS, and MBI outcomes. In the probability ranking results, ≥10 Hz rTMS ranked first in UE-FMA, WMFT, and MBI. For the NIHSS outcome, the ITBS ranked first and 1 Hz rTMS ranked the second. The subgroup analyses of UE-FMA showed that ≥10 Hz rTMS was the best stimulation protocol for mild stroke, severe stroke, and the convalescent phase, as well as ITBS was for acute and subacute phases. In addition, it was reported in 13 included studies that only a few patients suffered from adverse reactions, such as headache, nausea, and emesis. Conclusion: Overall, ≥10 Hz rTMS may be the best stimulation protocol for improving the upper limb motor function and ADL performance in patients with stroke. Considering the impact of stroke severity and phase on the upper limb motor function, ≥10 Hz rTMS may be the preferred stimulation protocol for mild stroke, severe stroke, and for the convalescent phase, and ITBS for acute and subacute phases. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier [CRD42020212253].
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.