Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37901439›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2023

The effectiveness of intermittent theta burst stimulation for upper limb motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Songbin Chen, Shunxi Zhang, Wenqing Yang, Yujie Chen, Bingshui Wang, Jixiang Chen, Xiaotong Li, Lanfang Xie, Huangjie Huang, Yangkang Zeng and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Songbin ChenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Shunxi ZhangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Wenqing YangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Yujie ChenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Bingshui WangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Jixiang ChenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaotong LiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Lanfang XieDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Huangjie HuangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yangkang ZengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen University General Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Lingling TianDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Wenxue JiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Xijun WeiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Yue LanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Hai LiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Southern Medical University Shenzhen Hospital · CNSouth China University of Technology · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CNShenzhen University · CNThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is a promising noninvasive therapy to restore the excitability of the cortex, and subsequently improve the function of the upper extremities. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of iTBS in restoring upper limb function and modulating cortical excitability. We aimed to evaluate the effects of iTBS on upper limb motor recovery after stroke. Objective: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the influence of intermittent theta-burst stimulation on upper limb motor recovery and improve the quality of life. Method: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CBM, including only English studies, to identify studies that investigated the effects of iTBS on upper limb recovery, compared with sham iTBS used in control groups. Effect size was reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that when compared to the control group, the iTBS group had a significant difference in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) (WMD: 3.20, 95% CI: 1.42 to 4.97; WMD: 3.72, 95% CI: 2.13 to 5.30, respectively). In addition, there was also a significant improvement in the modified Ashworth scale (MAS) compared to the sham group (WMD: -0.56; 95% CI: -0.85 to -0.28). More evidence is still needed to confirm the effect of Barthel Index (BI) scores after interventions. However, no significant effect was found for the assessment of Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) amplitude and MEP latency (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.90; SMD: 0.35, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.87; SMD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.55; respectively). Conclusion: Our results showed that iTBS significantly improved motor impairment, functional activities, and reduced muscle tone of upper limbs, thereby increasing the ability to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in stroke patients, while there were no significant differences in MEPs. In conclusion, iTBS is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation as an adjunct to therapy and enhances the therapeutic effect of conventional physical therapy. In the future, more randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes, high quality, and follow-up are necessary to explore the neurophysiological effects. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023392739.

Indexed as

intermittent theta burst stimulationmeta-analysisrehabilitationstrokeupper limb function

Identifiers

PMID37901439
PMCPMC10602812
OpenAlexW4387580952

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.