SynthesisActa neurologica Belgica2025
Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation in essential tremor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy.
Synthesis in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tremor: Clinical Frameworks, Network Dysfunction and Therapeutics.Brain sciences · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEssential tremor (ET) is a common neurological disorder that significantly impacts daily activities. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cerebellar repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) and cerebellar Theta Burst Stimulation (TBS) in treating ET.
methodsWe searched through June 14, 2024, four databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL) to identify clinical trials investigating cerebellar rTMS or TBS in ET patients. Eligibility criteria included clinical trials reporting on safety and efficacy outcomes. Six reviewers screened and extracted data independently, resolving conflicts through consensus. Risk of bias was assessed. Statistical analyses involved pooling continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan 5.3.
resultsOut of 201 screened studies, nine studies were included, with a total of 261 participants (149 received rTMS, 112 were in control groups). The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between rTMS and sham groups for Fahn-Tolosa-Marin (FTM) subscores A (MD: -3.03, 95% CI: [-7.66, 1.60], P = 0.20), B (MD: -2.74, 95% CI: [-8.09, 2.61], P = 0.32), C (MD: -1.57, 95% CI: [-5.12, 1.97], P = 0.38), and FTM-Total (MD: -8.12, 95% CI: [-20.47, 4.23], P = 0.20). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. Adverse events were minimal: headaches (1/44 rTMS, 2/19 sham), dizziness (1/44 rTMS, 0/19 sham), and no reported seizures or syncope.
conclusionWhile individual studies noted significant FTM score improvements post-rTMS treatment, the pooled analysis found no significant differences versus sham. Further research with standardized protocols and larger samples is required to optimize rTMS use for ET.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40055256What 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.