ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
Achieving greater accuracy in transcranial magnetic stimulation corticospinal evaluation and motor mapping by improving motor evoked potential recording: an emerging issue.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate evaluation of corticospinal excitability and motor mapping via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) relies heavily on motor evoked potential (MEP) recordings. However, a consensus on optimal surface electrode configurations is lacking. This pilot study investigated the impact of electrode montages on the accuracy of MEP recordings. MEPs were recorded in a healthy male subject (43 years old) using a 64-channel electrode array placed over the right brachioradialis (BR) and biceps brachii (BB) muscles. Two montages—bipolar and pseudomopolar—were simulated to assess differences in MEP peak-to-peak values (MEPP−P). For the BR muscle, MEPP−P were ~ 175 µV (bipolar) and 200 µV (pseudomonopolar), presenting a modest difference. In contrast, the BB muscle presented ~ 40 µV (bipolar) and 200 µV (pseudomonopolar), resulting in a five-fold difference between the two surface electrode montages. The present findings suggest a pivotal role for surface electrode montage in optimizing MEP signal acquisition. Given that the MEP is the key parameter in determining the motor threshold, which in turn serves as a reference for both diagnostic purposes and defining repetitive TMS dosing, there is an imperative need to standardize surface electromyography-based recording protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40928607What 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.