ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2022
Effect of Low Frequency Cerebellar Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Balance Impairment in Patients With Cerebral Infarction.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of Cerebellar Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Function of Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of Cerebellar Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Post-stroke Balance and Limb Motor Function Impairments: Meta-analyses of Random Controlled Trials and Resting-State fMRI Studies.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving balance capacity and activity of daily living in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of Trunk Versus Skeletal Muscle Mass Gain on Balance Improvement in Patients with Cerebral Infarction.JMA journal · 2025Article
- Exploring cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation in post-stroke limb dysfunction rehabilitation: a narrative review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
- Effects of Cerebellar Non-Invasive Stimulation on Neurorehabilitation in Stroke Patients: An Updated Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Bilateral Cerebellar Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Ataxia After Hemorrhagic Stroke: a Case Report.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of low frequency cerebellar repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on balance impairment in patients with cerebral infarction.
methodsThirty-two patients were randomly divided into two groups: rTMS group (n=16) and control (n=16). In the rTMS group, treatment was performed five times per week for 2 weeks (10 sessions), and in the control group, a sham coil was used with the sound and sensation of scalp similar to the rTMS coil. Patients in both groups underwent a conventional rehabilitation program. Berg Balance Scale (BBS) was used as the primary outcome measurement. Timed Up and Go test (TUG), 10-m walk test (10mWT), and Activity-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC) were used as the secondary outcome measurement. All scales were measured at baseline (T0), after 10 sessions of rTMS (T1), and at 4 weeks after treatment completion (T2) by therapists with over 5 years of clinical experience.
resultsThere were significant improvements between T0 and T1, and between T0 and T2, for all assessed items in the rTMS group. Whereas there were significant improvements between T0 and T1, and between T0 and T2, for the BBS and 10mWT in the control group. TUG (-4.87±5.05 vs. -0.50±2.97 seconds) and ABC score (8.10±8.33 vs. 0.16±0.97) were observed significant differences in comparison of the changes from T0 to T1 between the two group. BBS score (4.40±3.66 vs. 1.88±3.14), TUG (-4.87±4.56 vs. -0.62±2.96 seconds) and ABC score (8.22±7.70 vs. -0.09±0.86) differed significantly from T0 to T2 between the two groups.
conclusionOur findings suggest that low-frequency cerebellar rTMS is helpful for improving balance in patients with cerebral infarction, and maybe a beneficial treatment for these patients.
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.