Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39994795›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2025

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for motor function in stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

Guanli Xie, Tao Wang, Li Deng, Liming Zhou, Xia Zheng, Chongyu Zhao, Li Li, Haoming Sun, Jianglong Liao, Kai Yuan

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. [Research progress on the neuromodulation targets in stroke rehabilitation].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. An update on the effects of cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors.

Guanli XieYunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9865-3901
Tao WangKunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Li DengKunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Liming ZhouKunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Xia ZhengKunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Chongyu ZhaoKunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Li LiKunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Haoming SunKunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Jianglong LiaoKunming Municipal Hospital of Chinese Medicine, & Kunming Combination of Chinese and Western Medicine Minimally Invasive Spine Technology Center, Kunming, Yunnan, China. liao13988902077@126.com.
Kai YuanYunnan University of Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan, China. yk_ynutcm@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating motor dysfunction in stroke patients.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in five online databases, namely, Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus, from their inception to July 29, 2024. Studies meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria were included. The data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1 software and Stata 15.0. The subgroup analysis was conducted based on various disease stages and intervention frequencies. The overall effects were estimated using either the fixed effects model or the random effects model, with standardized mean differences (SMDs). The level of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

resultsA total of 70 studies encompassing 2951 stroke survivors were included. The results of the quantitative analysis revealed that the application of 1 Hz rTMS over the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1) significantly improved motor function during both the early stage (< 1 month) with moderate effect size (n = 443, SMD = 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.63, P < 0.00001, I

conclusionModerate- to high-quality evidence suggests that 1 Hz rTMS over the contralesional M1 may enhance motor function and independence in ADL during the early stages of stroke and the recovery period (within 6 months) with moderate effect. Nonetheless, as for the efficacy of 3, 5, 10, and 20 Hz rTMS in the treatment of motor dysfunction after stroke, it needs to be further determined. It is important to interpret these findings with caution in clinical practice due to the small sample sizes and low quality of the studies reviewed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: INPLASY, Registration number is INPLASY202360042. DOI number is https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.6.0042 .

Indexed as

Motor CortexStrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionMeta-analysisMotor functionRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationStrokeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39994795
PMCPMC11849290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.