Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38298134›Full record

Trial reportJournal of rehabilitation medicine2024

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with transcranial magnetic stimulation in rehabilitation of upper extremity hemiparesis following stroke: a pilot study.

Sijie Liang, Weining Wang, Fengyun Yu, Li Pan, Dongyan Xu, Ruiping Hu, Shan Tian, Jie Xiang, Yulian Zhu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

9 authors.

Sijie Liang *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Weining Wang *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Fengyun YuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Li PanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Dongyan XuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ruiping HuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Shan TianDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jie XiangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Yulian ZhuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. hsyykfkzyl@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the effect of combined repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function in subacute stroke patients.

designPilot study. SUBJECTS: Subacute stroke patients.

methodsIncluded patients were randomized into 3 groups: a central-associated peripheral stimulation (CPS) group, a central-stimulation-only (CS) group, and a control (C) group. The CPS group underwent a new paired associative stimulation (combined repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation), the CS group underwent repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and the C group underwent sham stimulation. All 3 groups received physiotherapy after the stimulation or sham stimulation. The treatment comprised 20 once-daily sessions. Primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score, and secondary outcomes were the Barthel Index and Comprehensive Functional Assessment scores, and neurophysiological assessments were mainly short-interval intracortical inhibition. A 3-group (CPS, CS, C) × 2-time (before, after intervention) repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether changes in scores were significantly different between the 3 groups.

resultsA total of 45 patients were included in the analysis. Between-group comparisons on the FMA-UE demonstrated a significant improvement (group × time interaction, F2,42 = 4.86; p = 0.013; C vs CS, p = 0.020; C vs CPS, p = 0.016; CS vs CPS, p = 0.955). Correlation analysis did not find any substantial positive correlation between changes in FMA-UE and short-interval intracortical inhibition variables (C, r = -0.196, p = 0.483; CS, r = -0.169, p = 0.546; CPS, r = -0.424, p = 0.115).

conclusionThis study suggests that the real-stimulus (CS and CPS) groups had better outcomes than the control (C) group. In addition, the CPS group showed a better trend in clinical and neurophysiological assessments compared with the CS group.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansMagnetic PhenomenaParesisPilot ProjectsRecovery of FunctionTranscranial Magnetic StimulationTreatment OutcomeUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID38298134
PMCPMC10847975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.