SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Retest reliability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the healthy human motor cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial of intermittent theta burst stimulation to the medial prefrontal cortex for tobacco use disorder: Clinical efficacy and safety.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2024Trial
- The Test-Retest Reliability of Non-Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Measures of Corticospinal Pathway Excitability in a Neurologically Intact Adult Population.Brain topography · 2026Article
- Complexity of resting cortical activity predicts neurophysiological responses to theta-burst stimulation but fails to generalize: A rigorous machine-learning approach.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Noninvasive brain stimulation and athletic performance: a critical narrative review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Complexity of Resting Cortical Activity Predicts Neurophysiological Responses to Theta- Burst Stimulation but Fails to Generalize: A Rigorous Machine-Learning Approach.Research square · 2025Article
- Effects of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Cognitive-Affective Task-Based Functional Connectivity.Brain connectivity · 2025Article
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for enhancing motor function after spinal cord injury: a narrative review.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is used to induce long-lasting changes (aftereffects) in cortical excitability, which are often measured via single-pulse TMS (spTMS) over the motor cortex eliciting motor-evoked potentials (MEPs). rTMS includes various protocols, such as theta-burst stimulation (TBS), paired associative stimulation (PAS), and continuous rTMS with a fixed frequency. Nevertheless, subsequent aftereffects of rTMS are variable and seem to fail repeatability. We aimed to summarize standard rTMS procedures regarding their test-retest reliability. Hereby, we considered influencing factors such as the methodological quality of experiments and publication bias. Methods: We conducted a literature search via PubMed in March 2023. The inclusion criteria were the application of rTMS, TBS, or PAS at least twice over the motor cortex of healthy subjects with measurements of MEPs via spTMS as a dependent variable. The exclusion criteria were measurements derived from the non-stimulated hemisphere, of non-hand muscles, and by electroencephalography only. We extracted test-retest reliability measures and aftereffects from the eligible studies. With the Rosenthal fail-safe N, funnel plot, and asymmetry test, we examined the publication bias and accounted for influential factors such as the methodological quality of experiments measured with a standardized checklist. Results: A total of 15 studies that investigated test-retest reliability of rTMS protocols in a total of 291 subjects were identified. Reliability measures, i.e., Pearson's Conclusion: The reliability of rTMS appears to be in the small to moderate range overall. Due to a limited number of studies reporting test-retest reliability values and heterogeneity of dependent measures, we could not provide generalizable results. We could not identify any protocol as superior to the others.
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.