SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024
Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in post-stroke cognitive impairment: an overview of systematic reviews.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions for post-stroke cognitive impairment: a systematic review of neuroplastic mechanisms, comparative efficacy, and multimodal approaches.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of noninvasive brain stimulation in the treatment of poststroke depression: an overview of systematic reviews.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Update on Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Post-Stroke Cognitive Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Review
- 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
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The reliability of clinical evidence depends on high-quality meta-analyses/ systematic reviews (MAs/SRs). However, there has been no assessment of the quality of MAs/SRs for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI), both nationally and internationally. This article seeks to use radar plotting to visually present the quality of MAs/SRs on rTMS for improving cognitive function in PSCI, aiming to offer an intuitive foundation for clinical research. Methods: Eight Chinese or English databases were systematically searched to collect comprehensive literature, and the retrieval time ranged from inception to 26 March 2024. Literature ranking was calculated using six dimensions: publication year, design type, AMSTAR-2 score, PRISMA score, publication bias, and homogeneity. Finally, radar plots were drafted to present a multivariate literature evaluation. The GRADE tool assessed the strength of evidence for the outcome indicators included in the MAs/SRs. Results: The 17 articles included had average scores of 12.29, 17, 9.88, 9.71, 12.88, and 12.76 for each dimension. The radar plot showed that an article published in 2023 had the highest rank and a large radar plot area, while an article published in 2021 had the lowest rank and a small radar plot area. The GRADE tool evaluation revealed that 51 pieces of evidence were of very low quality, 67 were of low quality, 12 were of moderate quality, and only one was of high quality. Conclusion: The average rank score of literature ranged from 8.50 to 17, with higher rankings indicating greater significance in literature reference. Variations in literature quality were attributed to inadequate study planning, irregular literature search and screening, insufficient description of inclusion criteria for studies, and inadequate consideration of bias risk in the included studies. Most MAs/SRs indicated that rTMS was more effective than the control group in enhancing the global cognitive function and activities of daily living in PSCI patients. However, the overall quality of the literature was generally low and needs validation from future high-quality evidence.
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.