ArticleBrain sciences2023
Selective Stimulus Intensity during Hotspot Search Ensures Faster and More Accurate Preoperative Motor Mapping with nTMS.
Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has emerged as one of the most innovative techniques in neurosurgical practice. However, nTMS motor mapping involves rigorous steps, and the importance of an accurate execution method has not been emphasized enough. In particular, despite strict adherence to procedural protocols, we have observed high variability in map activation according to the choice of stimulation intensity (SI) right from the early stage of hotspot localization. We present a retrospective analysis of motor mappings performed between March 2020 and July 2022, where the SI was only chosen with rigorous care in the most recent ones, under the guide of an expert neurophysiologist. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn order to test the ability to reduce inaccurate responses and time expenditure using selective SI, data were collected from 16 patients who underwent mapping with the random method (group A) and 15 patients who underwent mapping with the proposed method (group B). The parameters considered were resting motor threshold (%), number of stimuli, number of valid motor evoked potentials (MEPs), number of valid MEPs considered true positives (TPs), number of valid MEPs considered false positives (FPs), ratio of true-positive MEPs to total stimuli, ratio of true-positive MEPs to valid MEPs, minimum amplitude, maximum amplitude and mapping time for each patient.
resultsThe analysis showed statistically significant reductions in total stimulus demand, procedural time and number of false-positive MEPs. Significant increases were observed in the number of true-positive MEPs, the ratio of true-positive MEPs to total stimuli and the ratio of true-positive MEPs to valid MEPs. In the subgroups analyzed, there were similar trends, in particular, an increase in true positives and a decrease in false-positive responses.
conclusionsThe precise selection of SI during hotspot search in nTMS motor mapping could provide reliable cortical maps in short time and with low employment of resources. This method seems to ensure that a MEP really represents a functionally eloquent cortical point, making mapping more intuitive even in less experienced centers.
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.