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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of theta burst stimulation for motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review.European journal of medical research · 2024Pooled it
- Theta burst stimulation for enhancing upper extremity motor functions after stroke: a systematic review of clinical and mechanistic evidence.Reviews in the neurosciences · 2024Pooled it
- Multiscale Mechanisms that Underlie Intermittent Theta-burst Stimulation in Post-stroke Motor Recovery: From Molecular Signaling to Network Reorganization.Translational stroke research · 2026Review
- Functional near-infrared spectroscopy study of intermittent theta burst stimulation on lower-limb motor dysfunction in patients with post-stroke hemiplegia.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Transcranial Magnetic Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation (iTBS) Enhances Physical Performance in Mixed Martial Arts Athletes: A Pilot Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation on upper limb motor recovery in early stroke patients: an fNIRS study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- The effectiveness of intermittent theta burst stimulation for upper limb motor recovery after stroke: an exploratory randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Global research hotspots and trends of theta burst stimulation from 2004 to 2023: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation on upper limb function in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- The effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in ameliorating limb motor function disorders after stroke: an umbrella review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.