Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39066092›Full record

SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Noninvasive Electromagnetic Neuromodulation of the Central and Peripheral Nervous System for Upper-Limb Motor Strength and Functionality in Individuals with Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Loreto García-Alén, Aina Ros-Alsina, Laura Sistach-Bosch, Mark Wright, Hatice Kumru

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Evaluation of blood flow restriction combined with routine rehabilitation in incomplete thoracic and lumbar spinal cord injury after decompression: a retrospective study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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.

Loreto García-AlénFundación Institut Guttmann, Institut Universitari de Neurorrehabilitació Adscrit a la UAB, 08916 Badalona, Spain.
Aina Ros-AlsinaFundación Institut Guttmann, Institut Universitari de Neurorrehabilitació Adscrit a la UAB, 08916 Badalona, Spain.
Laura Sistach-BoschFundación Institut Guttmann, Institut Universitari de Neurorrehabilitació Adscrit a la UAB, 08916 Badalona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3293-1128
Mark WrightFundación Institut Guttmann, Institut Universitari de Neurorrehabilitació Adscrit a la UAB, 08916 Badalona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8205-8246
Hatice KumruFundación Institut Guttmann, Institut Universitari de Neurorrehabilitació Adscrit a la UAB, 08916 Badalona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0501-1660

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Restoring arm and hand function is one of the priorities of people with cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI). Noninvasive electromagnetic neuromodulation is a current approach that aims to improve upper-limb function in individuals with SCI. The aim of this study is to review updated information on the different applications of noninvasive electromagnetic neuromodulation techniques that focus on restoring upper-limb functionality and motor function in people with cSCI. (2) Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to structure the search protocol. A systematic review of the literature was performed in three databases: the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). (3) Results: Twenty-five studies were included: four were on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), four on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), two on transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS), ten on functional electrical stimulation (FES), four on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and one on neuromuscular stimulation (NMS). The meta-analysis could not be completed due to a lack of common motor or functional evaluations. Finally, we realized a narrative review of the results, which reported that noninvasive electromagnetic neuromodulation combined with rehabilitation at the cerebral or spinal cord level significantly improved upper-limb functionality and motor function in cSCI subjects. Results were significant compared with the control group when tSCS, FES, TENS, and NMS was applied. (4) Conclusions: To perform a meta-analysis and contribute to more evidence, randomized controlled trials with standardized outcome measures for the upper extremities in cSCI are needed, even though significant improvement was reported in each non-invasive electromagnetic neuromodulation study.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord InjuriesTranscranial Magnetic StimulationUpper ExtremityCentral Nervous SystemCervical CordHumansPeripheral Nervous SystemTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulationcervical spinal cord injuryelectromagnetic stimulationfunctionalitymotor functionnoninvasive neuromodulationupper limb

Identifiers

PMID39066092
PMCPMC11280769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.