SynthesisJournal of neurology2024
Does repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation have a beneficial effect on improving unilateral spatial neglect caused by stroke? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain Network Connectivity During Resting-State and a Visuospatial Task as a Biomarker for Spatial Neglect in Stroke Patients.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Trial
- Non-invasive brain stimulation: current and future applications in neurology.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Review
- Development of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for central poststroke pain: A review.Medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
This review aimed to assess the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in improving post-stroke unilateral spatial neglect (USN) using a meta-analysis. Further, we aimed to identify any association between rTMS parameters, patient demographics, and treatment effect sizes using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. A literature search was conducted through four databases from inception to March 6, 2024, to retrieve all relevant controlled trials investigating the effects of rTMS on symptoms of USN in post-stroke patients. Overall, rTMS significantly improved post-stroke USN, as measured by the line bisection test (Hedges' g = - 1.301, p < 0.0001), the cancelation test (Hedge's g = - 1.512, p < 0.0001), and the Catherine Bergego Scale (Hedges'g = - 0.770, p < 0.0001), compared to sham stimulation. Subgroup analysis found that generally larger effect sizes following excitatory rTMS across several outcome measures, indicating that excitatory rTMS on the ipsilesional hemisphere may be more effective than inhibitory rTMS on the contralesional hemisphere in ameliorating neglect symptoms. Meta-regression analysis of the line bisection test showed a significant difference in the chronicity of stroke patients, suggesting that rTMS may be more effective for USN in patients at the acute stage (within 3 months since stroke) than in those at the post-acute stage (p = 0.035). In conclusion, rTMS appears to be effective in promoting recovery from post-stroke USN. Excitatory protocols and early intervention may enhance recovery outcomes for neglect behaviors in post-stroke survivors.
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.