SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2025
Comparison of the efficacy of different protocols of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation on motor function, activities of daily living, and neurological function in patients with early stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for lower limb motor impairment in post-stroke hemiplegia: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Inflammatory profiling for precision neurorehabilitation after traumatic brain injury and stroke: a narrative review.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Modern Technologies Supporting Motor Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with early stroke has recently received considerable attention, but the optimal protocol remains inconclusive. This study intends to evaluate and compare the effects of different protocols of tDCS and rTMS on improving motor function, activities of daily living (ADL), and neurological function in patients with early stroke, and to comprehensively assess their efficacy and safety.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and Bayesian NMA was conducted using R4.3.1 and Stata16.
resultsThe results of NMA showed that after early intervention, bilateral application of high- and low-frequency rTMS (BL-rTMS) performed best in improving the upper extremity motor function at the end of intervention (SUCRA: 92.8%) and 3 months (SUCRA: 95.4%). Besides, low-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS) performed best in improving the lower extremity motor function (SUCRA: 67.7%). BL-rTMS was the most effective in ameliorating the ADL at the end of intervention (SUCRA: 100%) and 3 months (SUCRA: 85.6%). In terms of the NIHSS scores, BL-rTMS had the highest probability of being the most effective measure at the end of intervention (SUCRA: 99.7%) and 3 months (SUCRA: 97.05%). Besides, LF-rTMS (0%), 5 Hz-rTMS (0%), and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) (0%) all exhibited a good safety profile.
conclusionBL-rTMS is the optimal stimulation protocol for improving upper extremity motor function, ADL, and neurological function in early stroke, with long-term efficacy.
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.