Trial reportScientific reports2025
Clinical efficacy observation of repetitive magnetic stimulation for treating upper limb spasticity after stroke.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke spasticity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on post-stroke limb spasticity.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Modern Technologies Supporting Motor Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Effects of theta burst peripheral magnetic stimulation on cortical excitability and upper limb function after stroke: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- The efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function in intracerebral hemorrhage: a real-world retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Comparing the effects of different electromagnetic stimulation on lower limb motor impairment after stroke: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
- Neuromodulation approaches and applications in the management of post-stroke pain: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for managing upper limb muscular spasticity after stroke, and to examine its therapeutic effects on spasticity and motor function in the upper limb. A total of 110 post-stroke patients with upper limb spasticity were randomly assigned to the experimental or the control group. The experimental group received rTMS in conjunction with conventional rehabilitation therapy. The affected side of the head received daily treatment for 20 min each at Erb's point and the stimulation point, totaling 15 sessions over six days per week. The stimulation frequencies were 10 Hz (high frequency, M1 region) and 1 Hz (low frequency, Erb's point), with an intensity at 120% of the threshold. The control group received sham stimulation alongside conventional rehabilitation therapy. Assessments including the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FM-UE), were also conducted before treatment initiation and after 15 rounds of rTMS. Post hoc subgroup analyses were conducted using independent-sample t-tests for FM-UE scores and Mann-Whitney U tests for MAS scores to assess heterogeneity in treatment responses by stroke type (cerebral infarction vs. intracerebral hemorrhage). Among these 110 patients, 25 patients were excluded from the study for various reasons. Hence, 53 patients were included in the control group and 32 patients were included in the experimental group. Following 15 rounds of rTMS, the experimental group exhibited a reductions in MAS score (P = 0.004). FM-UE scores increased significantly in both groups (both P < 0.05), with significant improvement observed in the experimental group (P < 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences in FM-UE or MAS outcomes between stroke types, likely due to the limited sample size of intracerebral hemorrhage participants (experimental group: n = 8; control group: n = 16). rTMS effectively alleviates upper limb spasticity and enhances motor function after stroke by modulating cortical and spinal nerve excitability.
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.