ArticleBrain sciences2025
Are Changes in Corticomotor Excitability Associated with Improved Arm Functional Performance Following a Tailored Strength Training Intervention in Chronic Stroke Survivors?
Article in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesWe showed that a tailored strengthening intervention based on the size of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the affected hemisphere resulted in an improved affected arm function, regardless of stroke severity. Also, adding anodal transcranial direct stimulation (atDCS) during training did not alter the results as participants receiving real or sham stimulation showed similar gains. The goal of this study was to report on the changes in basic measures of corticomotor excitability in response to the intervention and to determine whether these changes were influenced by tDCS and correlated with those measured in arm function.
methodsThe TMS measures consisted of the resting motor threshold (rMT), MEP amplitude at rest, and the silent period (SP) duration. Clinical outcomes included the Box and Block test (BBT) and grip strength (GS).
resultsPost-intervention, regardless of atDCS (
conclusionsAs observed for clinical measures, atDCS did not influence corticomotor excitability. The absence of an increase in the excitability of the affected hemisphere and important associations between changes in corticomotor excitability and clinical gains suggest that factors other than brain plasticity could mediate gains in arm function. Further investigations are required regarding the role of tDCS in stroke rehabilitation.
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.