ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2025
Effect of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for patients with chronic stroke: a case report using an AB design.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation in a patient with chronic stroke. Design: Case report. Patients: A man in his 70s presented with left hemiplegia secondary to cerebral hemorrhage. Methods: An AB design was used: phase A (sham stimulation) and phase B (active stimulation). Magnetic stimulation was applied using a peripheral magnetic stimulator (Pathleader™, IFG, Sendai, Japan). Outcomes were assessed at four points: before the intervention, after phase A, after phase B, and at follow-up (3 weeks after phase B) using the Modified Ashworth Scale, range of motion, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Simple Test for Evaluating Hand Function, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measures. Results: The Modified Ashworth Scale score for the wrist extensor remained unchanged in phase A but improved after phase B and was sustained at follow-up. The range of motion showed no change. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment scores were 40, 41, 44, and 45, respectively, and the Simple Test for Evaluating Hand Function scores were 1, 4, 3, and 5, respectively, at the four time points. One Canadian Occupational Performance Measure item improved after phase B and remained stable. Conclusion: In patients with chronic stroke and severe hemiplegia, repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation may be effective in reducing spasticity and improving motor function.
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.