SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with different stimulation parameters on post-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and Neurophysiological Mechanisms of 10 Hz Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Post-Stroke Dysphagia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Revista de neurologia · 2026Trial
- Case Report: Improvement in Swallowing Function Following DLPFC-Targeted Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in a Post-Stroke Patient with Cognitive Impairment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of Navigated rTMS on Post-Stroke Upper-Limb Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Clinical outcomes of rTMS-augmented rehabilitation for post-stroke language and swallowing dysfunction: a sham-controlled prospective study with theory-informed interpretation.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating post-stroke dysphagia (PSD). However, consensus on optimal clinical protocols for rTMS remains unclear. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of rTMS with different stimulation parameters in the treatment of PSD to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched across five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE) up to November 2024. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using RevMan 5.40. Heterogeneity was evaluated via Results: A total of 18 RCTs with 835 PSD patients were included in this study. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was evaluated as low, and the level of evidence recommendation was rated as "strong." Meta-analyses demonstrated that both cerebral and cerebellar rTMS treatments significantly improved the swallowing function of PSD patients ( Conclusion: Both cerebral and cerebellar rTMS therapy can effectively and safely improve swallowing function in patients with PSD. Furthermore, cerebellar rTMS appears to be superior to cerebral rTMS in the treatment of PSD. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024498567.
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.