ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Effects of different magnetic stimulation paradigms on post-stroke upper limb function: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), and their combined application can all enhance upper limb functional recovery after stroke. However, their comparative therapeutic profiles, including relative advantages and limitations, have not been systematically characterized. Objectives: To compare rTMS, rPMS, and combined protocols for post-stroke upper limb recovery, analyzing both functional outcomes and neural mechanisms to guide therapeutic selection. Methods: Fifty-one stroke patients were randomly divided into an rTMS group, rPMS group, or a combined group. Before and after 3 weeks of intervention, all patients were assessed with the Fugl-Meyer assessment for the upper limb (FMA-UL), the Thumb Localizing Test (TLT), modified Barthel index (MBI), and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI). Results: The ΔFMA-UL and ΔMBI scores of the combined group were significantly better than the rTMS group and rPMS group. The ΔTLT scores of the combined group and rPMS were significantly better than the rTMS group, but there was no statistically significant difference in ΔTLT scores between rPMS and the combined group. Compared to the rTMS group, the rPMS group showed increased amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (ALFF) in the ipsilesional superior frontal gyrus, cerebellum_8 area, and contralesional cerebellum_crus1; the combined group showed increased ALFF in the ipsilesional cerebellum_8 area, superior medial frontal gyrus, and contralesional cerebellum_crus2 area. Compared with the rPMS group, the combined group showed increased ALFF in the ipsilesional paracentral lobule, supplementary motor area, precentral gyrus, and superior medial frontal gyrus. Conclusion: Compared with rTMS, rPMS has certain advantages in improving proprioception after stroke, and combination therapy improves both motor and proprioception. Therefore, combination therapy is recommended to better promote the recovery of brain and limb function. Clinical trial registration: http://chictr.org.cn, Identifier ChiCTR2200065871.
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.