ArticleTranslational pediatrics2025
Non-invasive brain stimulation for upper extremity dysfunction in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 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.
- Effects of virtual reality and robot-assisted therapy on rehabilitation outcomes in cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- The relationship between functional status and hematological parameters in children with spastic cerebral palsy: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Translational pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are the most commonly used non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques. However, NIBS for upper extremity dysfunction remains unclear in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Thus, we aim to determine safety and effectiveness of NIBS for upper extremity dysfunction in children with CP. Methods: Two reviewers conducted literature search on five databases including PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, Scopus, and Embase independently. Systematic review and meta-analyses of included studies were conducted. Studies used standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to calculate pooled effect size between two groups. The statistics I Results: Fifteen studies were included, with seven of which examined rTMS and eight studied tDCS. Total 366 children with CP were included. Changes in Box and Block Test (BBT) of the affected hand changed significantly in post (SMD =0.68; 95% CI: 0.02 to 1.34; P=0.044; I Conclusions: NIBS is safe and well tolerated in children with CP. And current evidence suggests that when safety guidelines are followed, NIBS does not induce seizures in pediatric patients with no history of epilepsy or stable epilepsy. tDCS is effective in improving upper extremity dysfunction such as fine motor function especially hand dexterity, and reducing upper extremity spasticity in children with CP. Due to insufficient studies, the effectiveness of rTMS is uncertain.
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.