ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with motor deficits after brain tumor resection: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neuronavigation-guided precise resection versus conventional glioma surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Unilateral contralesional versus bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients with post stroke dysphagia: a randomized controlled study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Trial
- Improving postsurgical paresis in brain tumor patients by transcranial magnetic stimulation.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Trial
- From Functional Mapping to Functional Recovery: The Emerging Role of Neuronavigated rTMS in Neurorehabilitation.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Association of postoperative navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation with accelerated motor recovery after tumor resection in the supplementary motor area.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Changes in Somatomotor Network Connectivity Differentiate Better Versus Worse Recovery of Hand Dexterity After Brain Tumor Surgery: A Cohort Study.Neural plasticity · 2026Article
- Asleep motor mapping in resected low-grade gliomas -a population based multicenter study.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Beyond synapses non-synaptic neural microenvironment interactions remodel circuits and drive glioma progression.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Is it an Effective Treatment for Cancer Pain?Pain and therapy · 2025Review
- Interventional neurorehabilitation for glioma patients: A systematic review.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Review
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Surgical resection of motor eloquent tumors poses the risk of causing postoperative motor deficits which leads to reduced quality of life in these patients. Currently, rehabilitative procedures are limited with physical therapy being the main treatment option. This study investigated the efficacy of repetitive navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment of motor deficits after supratentorial tumor resection. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial (DRKS00010043) recruited patients with a postoperatively worsened upper extremity motor function immediately postoperatively. They were randomly assigned to receive rTMS (1Hz, 110% RMT, 15 minutes, 7 days) or sham stimulation to the motor cortex contralateral to the injury followed by physical therapy. Motor and neurological function as well as quality of life were assessed directly after the intervention, one month and three months postoperatively. Results: Thirty patients were recruited for this study. There was no significant difference between both groups in the primary outcome, the Fugl Meyer score three months postoperatively [Group difference (95%-CI): 5.05 (-16.0; 26.1); p=0.631]. Patients in the rTMS group presented with better hand motor function one month postoperatively. Additionally, a subgroup of patients with motor eloquent ischemia showed lower NIHSS scores at all timepoints. Conclusions: Low-frequency rTMS facilitated the recovery process in stimulated hand muscles, but with limited generalization to other functional deficits. Long-term motor deficits were not impacted by rTMS. Given the reduced life expectancy in these patients a shortened recovery duration of deficits can still be of high significance. Clinical Trial Registration: https://drks.de/DRKS00010043.
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.