Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37168716›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2023

Effect of single and combined median nerve stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial.

Qi Xiong, Kai Le, Yunliang Tang, Wen Ye, Yan Wang, Yuan Zhong, Yao Zhou, Zhen Feng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qi XiongDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Kai LeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Yunliang TangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Wen YeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Yan WangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Yuan ZhongDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Yao ZhouDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Zhen FengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the efficacy of median nerve stimulation (MNS) combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), MNS alone, and rTMS alone in elevating the level of consciousness in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (pDOC). Participants and methods: We enrolled 75 eligible inpatients suffering from pDOC as a result of traumatic or non-traumatic brain injury. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following three treatment groups: (1) rTMS+sham-MNS; (2) MNS + sham-rTMS; or (3) MNS + rTMS. The rTMS protocol involved stimulation above the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at a 10 Hz frequency and 90% resting motor threshold. The MNS protocol involved the delivery of a 15-20 mA current at the median nerve point 2 cm from the wrist crease of the right distal forearm. The primary outcome was the change from baseline of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) score after treatment. Secondary outcomes included post-treatment changes from baseline of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, awaken ratio, electroencephalography (EEG) scores, and the latency and amplitude of N20 on somatosensory evoked potentials. Results: Before the intervention, there were no significant differences between groups in the CRS-R, GCS scores, age, duration of pDOC, clinical diagnosis, EEG scores, latency and amplitude of N20, sex, job, marital status, education level, or disease etiology. Within the three groups, the total CRS-R, GCS scores and amplitude of N20 on both side significantly increased and latency of N20 on poor side significantly decreased post-intervention. Significantly greater improvement in CRS-R, GCS total scores, amplitude of N20 on both side and latency of N20 on the poor side were observed in the MNS + TMS group compared to those of the groups receiving rTMS alone or MNS alone. The patients receiving TMS and MNS intervention showed a greater EEG activity improvement, and the EEG activity improved ratio significantly differ between groups, while there were no significant differences in the awakening ratios between the three groups. Conclusion: The combination of MNS + rTMS was more efficacious in improving the level of consciousness than MNS alone or rTMS alone in patients with pDOC.

Indexed as

brain injuryclinical trialdisorders of consciousnessmedian nerve stimulationrepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37168716
PMCPMC10164991
OpenAlexW4366828180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.