ReviewPeerJ2024
Transcranial magnetic stimulation enhances the specificity of multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria: a critical narrative review.
Review in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated neurodegenerative disease that involves attacks of inflammatory demyelination and axonal damage, with variable but continuous disability accumulation. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive method to characterize conduction loss and axonal damage in the corticospinal tract. TMS as a technique provides indices of corticospinal tract function that may serve as putative MS biomarkers. To date, no reviews have directly addressed the diagnostic performance of TMS in MS. The authors aimed to conduct a critical narrative review on the diagnostic performance of TMS in MS. Methods: The authors searched the Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies that reported the sensitivity and/or specificity of any reported TMS technique compared to established clinical MS diagnostic criteria. Studies were summarized and critically appraised for their quality and validity. Results: Seventeen of 1,073 records were included for data extraction and critical appraisal. Markers of demyelination and axonal damage-most notably, central motor conduction time (CMCT)-were specific, but not sensitive, for MS. Thirteen (76%), two (12%), and two (12%) studies exhibited high, unclear, and low risk of bias, respectively. No study demonstrated validity for TMS techniques as diagnostic biomarkers in MS. Conclusions: CMCT has the potential to: (1) enhance the specificity of clinical MS diagnostic criteria by "ruling in" true-positives, or (2) revise a diagnosis from relapsing to progressive forms of MS. However, there is presently insufficient high-quality evidence to recommend any TMS technique in the diagnostic algorithm for MS.
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.