Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41189653›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025

Efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic therapy for post-stroke aphasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lin Xie, Yingxiu Diao, Cheng Gong, Jiahao Huang, Miao Huang, Zhenying Dong

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Combined repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and mirror therapy for upper limb rehabilitation in stroke survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The nonlinear trajectory of post-stroke aphasia recovery.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lin XieDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Yingxiu DiaoDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Cheng GongDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Jiangxi, China.
Jiahao HuangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Miao HuangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Zhenying DongDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of patients with post-stroke aphasia (PSA). Methods: The PubMed, PEDro, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception until January 30, 2024. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contained information on the population (PSA), intervention (rTMS), and outcomes (Western Aphasia Battery, Aphasia Quotient, Aphasia Battery in Chinese, Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, Aachener Aphasie Test, Concise Chinese Aphasia Test and Computerized Picture Naming Test). Participants in the rTMS intervention group were compared with those in sham or other control groups. Two independent researchers searched for, screened, and qualified the articles. Two independent researchers extracted key information from each eligible study. The authors' names, year of publication, setting, total sample size, rTMS parameters, baseline/mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted using a standardized form, and the methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Revman 5.40, Nordic Cochrane Center) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Thirty relevant RCTs were included, involving a total of 1,597 patients. The analysis turned out that rTMS combined with speech and language therapy (SLT) resulted in significant improvements in auditory comprehension, naming, repetition, and spontaneous speech in patients with PSA compared with sham stimulation combined with SLT or SLT alone in the control group. (auditory comprehension, MD = 1.94, 95%CI = [1.16, 2.17], Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that rTMS can safely and effectively promote the recovery of speech function in patients with PSA. Clinical trial registration: The study has been registered with Prospero https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/search, (CRD42022363899).

Indexed as

meta-analysisnoninvasive brain stimulationpost-stroke aphasiarepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41189653
PMCPMC12580143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.