Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707110›Full record

ReviewNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2025

Intermittent theta burst stimulation vs. high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke dysfunction: a Bayesian model-based network meta-analysis of RCTs.

Yanbing Huang, Caihui Li, Rongda Cai, Tianlai Lin, Weiwen Chen

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
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.

Yanbing HuangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Quanzhou First Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, Fujian Province, 362000, China.
Caihui LiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Quanzhou First Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, Fujian Province, 362000, China.
Rongda CaiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Quanzhou First Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, Fujian Province, 362000, China.
Tianlai LinDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Quanzhou First Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, Fujian Province, 362000, China. tianlailin_tl@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-2741-5728
Weiwen ChenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Quanzhou First Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, Fujian Province, 362000, China. WEIWEN_chenn@outlook.com.

Funding

Startup Fund for Scientific Research, Fujian Medical University 2021QH1247
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis research aims to comprehensively assess the efficacy of intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) vs. high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) in post-stroke dysfunction. MATERIALS AND

methodsUntil January 2024, extensive electronic database searches were conducted (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, etc.). Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremities (FMA-UE) was used to assess upper limb (UL) dysfunction; post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) was identified by Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA), Fiberoptic Endoscopic Dysphagia Severity Scale (FEDSS), and Penetration/Aspiration Scale (PAS). Results were analyzed by network meta-analysis (NMA), and the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were also reported. We conducted a descriptive analysis due to the inability to synthesize data on post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI).

results19 studies were included for NMA analysis. For UL disorder, the efficacy of treatments was ranked as HF-rTMS [MD (95%CI):3.00 (1.69,4.31)], iTBS [MD (95%CI): 2.16 (0.84, 3.50)], and sham stimulation (reference). For PSD, the efficacy of treatment to reduce scores of FEDSS or SSA were iTBS [FEDSS, MD (95%CI): -0.80 (-1.13, -0.47); SSA, MD (95%CI): -3.37 (-4.36, -2.38)], HF-rTMS [FEDSS, MD (95%CI): -0.43 (-0.76, -0.10); SSA, MD (95%CI): -2.62 (-3.91, -1.35)], and sham stimulation(reference). Descriptive analysis of PSCI found that both iTBS and HF-rTMS were effective in improving PSCI.

conclusionsHF-rTMS demonstrates superior efficacy in UL dysfunction, while iTBS is more effective in PSD. Clinicians should carefully evaluate the type and severity of post-stroke dysfunction in each patient to select the most appropriate treatment.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersStrokeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBayes TheoremHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHF-rTMSiTBSNetwork meta-analysisPost-stroke dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID39707110
PMCPMC11919949

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.