SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Comparative efficacy of different repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols for lower extremity motor function in stroke patients: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07073235 (Neuroplastic Changes and Effects of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neuroplastic Changes and Effects of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation (iTBS) on Motor Recovery of Upper and Lower Extremity in Chronic Stroke Patients
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effects of six rehabilitation therapies on lower limb function and gait function in stroke patients: a network meta-analysis of 33 RCTs.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Combining low-frequency magnetic stimulation with motor imagery to improve lower limb recovery and motor pathway integrity in cerebral infarction: a randomized, double-blind, and controlled study.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Trial
- Comparative efficacy of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation versus repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in improving lower extremity motor function in subacute stroke patients.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- The Potential of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy as a Therapeutic Tool Following a Stroke (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2025Review
- Effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation on upper limb function in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- The safety of ipsilateral high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in brain tumour patients.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lower extremity motor dysfunction is one of the most severe consequences after stroke, restricting functional mobility and impairing daily activities. Growing evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can improve stroke patients' lower extremity motor function. However, there is still controversy about the optimal rTMS protocol. Therefore, we compared and analyzed the effects of different rTMS protocols on lower extremity motor function in stroke patients using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: We systematically searched CNKI, WanFang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (from origin to 31 December 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or crossover RCTs on rTMS improving lower extremity motor function in stroke patients were included. Two authors independently completed article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. RevMan (version 5.4) and Stata (version 17.0) were used to analyze the data. Results: A total of 38 studies with 2,022 patients were eligible for the NMA. The interventions included HFrTMS-M1, LFrTMS-M1, iTBS-Cerebellum, iTBS-M1, dTMS-M1, and Placebo. The results of NMA showed that LFrTMS-M1 ranked first in FMA-LE and speed, and HFrTMS-M1 ranked first in BBS, TUGT, and MEP amplitude. The subgroup analysis of FMA-LE showed that HFrTMS-M1 was the best stimulation protocol for post-stroke time > 1 month, and LFrTMS-M1 was the best stimulation protocol for post-stroke time ≤ 1 month. Conclusion: Considering the impact of the stroke phase on the lower extremity motor function, the current research evidence shows that HFrTMS-M1 may be the preferred stimulation protocol to improve the lower extremity motor function of patients for post-stroke time > 1 month, and LFrTMS-M1 for post-stroke time ≤ 1 month. However, the above conclusion needs further analysis and validation by more high-quality RCTs.
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.