ReviewFrontiers in neurology2025
Efficacy of different types of transcranial magnetic stimulation on post-stroke aphasia patients: a network meta-analysis.
Review 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Speech-Language Therapy for Post-Stroke Aphasia Recovery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
- rTMS over bilateral superior temporal gyri combined with auditory-speech training for post-stroke pure word deafness: a case report.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the comparative efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for post-stroke aphasia through a network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: We systematically searched four international databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase) and three Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP) from inception through October 2024. Two reviewers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Discrepancies are resolved through third-party adjudication. Network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 17.0. Results: Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs, Conclusion: LF-TMS & HF-TMS is the most effective intervention for clinical treatment of post-stroke aphasia. When targeting the IFG, POp is the optimal stimulation site. Regarding targeting methods, the 10-20 EEG system currently has the strongest evidence base.
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.