Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38329642›Full record

ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2024

Priming constraint-induced movement therapy with intermittent theta burst stimulation to enhance upper extremity recovery in patients with stroke: protocol for a randomized controlled study.

Esma Nur Kolbaşı, Burcu Ersoz Huseyinsinoglu, Zeynep Ozdemir, Zubeyir Bayraktaroglu, Aysun Soysal

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05308667 (Effects of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation in Addition to Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Stroke Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05308667 nacompletednot on this map

Effects of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation in Addition to Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Stroke Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorIstanbul Medeniyet UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled15ConditionsStroke, IschemicArmsRehabilitation (modified constraint-induced movement therapy), non-invasive brain stimulation (intermittent theta-burst stimulation)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Esma Nur KolbaşıDepartment of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5058-2374
Burcu Ersoz HuseyinsinogluDepartment of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. fztersoz@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4694-4440
Zeynep OzdemirDepartment of Neurology, Bakırkoy Prof. Dr. Mazhar Osman Training and Research Hospital for Psychiatric, Neurologic and Neurosurgical Diseases, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
Zubeyir BayraktarogluDepartment of Physiology, International School of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5118-4776
Aysun SoysalDepartment of Neurology, Bakırkoy Prof. Dr. Mazhar Osman Training and Research Hospital for Psychiatric, Neurologic and Neurosurgical Diseases, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe treatments based on motor control and motor learning principles have gained popularity in the last 20 years, as well as non-invasive brain stimulations that enhance neuroplastic changes after stroke. However, the effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) in addition to evidence-based, intensive neurorehabilitation approaches such as modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) is yet to be investigated.

aimWe aim to establish a protocol for a randomized controlled study investigating the efficiency of mCIMT primed with iTBS after stroke.

methodsIn this randomized controlled, single-blind study, patients with stroke (N = 17) will be divided into 3 groups: (a) mCIMT + real iTBS, (b) mCIMT + sham iTBS, and (c) mCIMT alone. 600-pulse iTBS will be delivered to the primary motor cortex on the ipsilesional hemisphere, and then, patients will receive mCIMT for 1 h/session, 3 sessions/week for 5 weeks. Upper extremity recovery will be assessed with Fugl-Meyer Test-Upper Extremity and Wolf Motor Function Test. Electrophysiological assessments, such as Motor-Evoked Potentials, Resting Motor Threshold, Short-Intracortical Inhibition, and Intracortical Facilitation, will also be included.

conclusionsIn this study, a protocol of an ongoing intervention study investigating the effectiveness of iTBS on ipsilesional M1 prior to the mCIMT in patients with stroke is proposed. This will be the first study to research priming mCIMT with iTBS and it may have the potential to reveal the true effect of the iTBS when it is added to the high-quality neurorehabilitation approaches.

trial registrationTrial registration number: NCT05308667.

Indexed as

Recovery of FunctionStrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationUpper ExtremityAdultAgedEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotor CortexRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSingle-Blind MethodTheta RhythmCerebrovascular accidentNeurological rehabilitationTranscranial magnetic stimulationUpper extremity

Identifiers

PMID38329642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.