ArticleScientific reports2024
Continuous theta burst stimulation at 30 hz does not modulate cortical excitability in a sham-controlled study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Theta burst stimulation (TBS) can modulate cortical excitability but suffers from high inter-subject variability. Modified TBS frequency patterns (30 Hz) showed consistent inhibitory aftereffects, but further research into the time course of these effects is needed. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a 30 Hz continuous TBS (cTBS) protocol. Participants (n = 20) underwent an experimental session (real cTBS) and a control session (sham cTBS). To assess cortical excitability, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation was applied over the primary motor cortex before cTBS, and at five timepoints after cTBS. Percentage change (PC) to baseline was analysed using a Linear Mixed Model. No difference in PC was found between real and sham cTBS (p = 0.696). Our results demonstrate a significant increase in PC over time (p = 0.006) at 30, (p = 0.01), 45 (p = 0.027), and 55 min (p = 0.024) post cTBS, irrespective of condition. Secondary analysis dividing the sample into responders and paradox-responders showed no significant predictors for cTBS responsiveness. We could not replicate previously reported suppressive effects of 30 Hz cTBS. Increases in MEP amplitudes over a 60-minute time window were independent of stimulation condition and marked by high inter-subject variability. Validations of modified TBS protocols are further needed to replicate findings and understand mechanisms underlying individuals' responsiveness.
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.