SynthesisJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2025
The efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment of primary adult-onset neurodegenerative cerebellar ataxias.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Review
- Evaluation of neurological outcomes after prolonged sedation among ICU patients: A prospective study in India.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Feasibility and preliminary signal of cerebellar intermittent theta burst stimulation for static balance in cerebellar ataxia: a pilot study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) is a group of hereditary neurodegenerative disorders characterized by the progressive incoordination of gait, impaired motor control, and various neurological deficits. Therapeutic options for SCA remain limited. However, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has gained attention as a potential intervention due to its noninvasive nature, ease of application, and favorable safety profile. To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of rTMS in SCA, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify RCTs assessing rTMS for SCA management. The primary outcomes of interest included changes in motor function as measured by the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) or the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS). Our analysis included eight RCTs involving a total of 237 participants. Meta-analysis results demonstrated statistically significant improvements in motor function. Specifically, SARA scores showed a mean difference (MD) of -1.56 (95% CI, -2.88 to -0.24; p = 0.02), and ICARS scores improved with an MD of -3.16 (95% CI, -3.93 to -2.39; p < 0.001) compared with a sham group. To evaluate the effects of different rTMS protocols on SCA, we performed subgroup analyses of low-frequency (LF), high-frequency (HF), and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS). We revealed that LF (MD, -1.60; 95% CI, -3.06 to -0.13; p = 0.03) and iTBS (MD, -1.68; 95% CI, -2.29 to -1.08; p < 0.001) were effective in significantly improving SARA. The HF group showed a reduction in SARA scores (MD, -1.52; 95% CI, -6.34 to 3.30; p = 0.54) but without significance because of the small sample size. These findings indicate that overall rTMS is a promising therapeutic approach for alleviating motor symptoms in hereditary SCA patients.
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.