SynthesisBrain and behavior2025
Effects of Cerebellar Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Function of Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cerebellar rhythms: mechanisms, functions and translational opportunities.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Review
- The effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in ameliorating limb motor function disorders after stroke: an umbrella review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs the core of motor control and learning, the cerebellum is crucial for maintaining posture, regulating muscle tone, and coordinating movement. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of studies on the application of cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation (cTMS) to motor dysfunction in patients with stroke. This review aims to analyze cTMS efficacy for stroke patients and further explore the specific effects of different stages of the disease, stimulation modes, stimulation intensity, and treatment duration.
methodsSix databases were searched comprehensively-CNKI, Wanfang, Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Embase-to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to October 2024 that investigated the improvement of physical motor dysfunction in stroke patients using cTMS. Two researchers screened the literature, extracted data, and independently assessed the quality and risk of bias of the included studies using the PEDro scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.
resultsA total of 20 RCTs with 812 participants were included. Meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis revealed that cTMS significantly improved BBS (Random, MD = 5.19, 95%CI = 3.66-6.72, p < 0.00001), enhanced FMA-LE scores (Random, MD = 1.88, 95%CI = 0.76-3.01, p = 0.001), shortened the TUG (Fix, MD = -1.64, 95%CI = -2.60 to -0.68, p = 0.0008), and 10MWT durations (Fix, MD = -7.66, 95%CI = -12.33 to -2.99, p = 0.001), and increased MEP amplitudes (Fix, MD = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.04-0.87, p = 0.03). Subgroup analysis of the BBS showed that cTMS had a significant effect on patients with stroke in the subacute phase (p < 0.00001), with improvements observed using HF-rTMS (p < 0.0001), iTBS (p < 0.00001), and intensities ≤ 80%RMT (< 80% RMT, p < 0.0001; 80% RMT, p < 0.00001). cTMS consistently demonstrated superior effects compared to controls across different intervention durations (5-10 sessions, p = 0.009; 11-20 sessions, p < 0.00001; > 20 sessions, p < 0.00001).
conclusioncTMS effectively improves motor function in patients with stroke, particularly during the subacute phase with excitatory stimulation and moderate intensities (≤ 80%RMT).
trial registrationPROSPERO number: CRD42024540604.
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.