SynthesisPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2025
Effects of electrical and magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function after stroke: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of electrical and magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function after stroke: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on the limb function of stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- The architecture of quality of life after stroke: a network comparison of mild-to-moderate versus severe functional impairment.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Differential cortical responses to neuromuscular electrical vs. peripheral magnetic stimulation: a multimodal TMS-fNIRS study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Advances in the diagnosis and management of post-stroke limb spasticity: a narrative 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo pool and rank the efficacy of various stimulation therapies, including repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and combinations of these interventions on upper extremity function, activities of daily living (ADL), and spasticity after stroke relative to sham/conventional rehabilitation. LITERATURE SURVEY: MEDLINE, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to July 2022. METHODOLOGY: Randomized controlled trials comparing any of the interventions mentioned above (rPMS, NMES, FES, TMS, NMES+rPMS, NMES+TMS, FES+TMS, and conventional rehabilitation) on upper extremity function, ADL, or spasticity from five databases were systematically reviewed and collected. Two-stage network meta-analysis was applied. SYNTHESIS: Thirty-four studies involving 1476 patients reporting upper extremity function with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment were pooled. NMES combined with rPMS, NMES, NMES combined with TMS, TMS, and FES showed significantly higher improvement than conventional rehabilitation, with pooled mean differences (95% confidence intervals) of 14.69 (9.94-19.45), 9.09 (6.01-12.18), 6.10 (2.51-9.69), 4.07 (0.33-7.81), and 3.61 (0.14-7.07) respectively. NMES combined with rPMS had the highest probability for improving upper extremity function. NMES plus TMS had the highest probability for improving ADL, but none of the interventions showed significant differences in spasticity.
conclusionsNMES plus rPMS might be the best intervention to improve upper extremity functions, with NMES plus TMS most likely to lead to improved ADL but the quality of the evidence is low.
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.