ArticleTranscranial magnetic stimulation (2024)2025
Reliability of Motor Evoked Potential Identification in Pediatric Populations.
Article in Transcranial magnetic stimulation (2024), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Longitudinal study of single-pulse TMS in infants with perinatal brain injury: safety and feasibility.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited through transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) may provide valuable insights into neuromotor development in pediatric populations. However, the reliability of identifying MEPs using rater-based approaches, particularly in infants, remains poorly defined. This study addresses this gap by evaluating interrater reliability (IRR) and consensus rates for MEP identification in adolescents and infants. Methods: Three experienced TMS researchers independently scored 5,738 electromyography (EMG) trials from 18 adolescents and 5,086 trials from 20 infants using a 5-point confidence scale. Scores reflected the raters' confidence in MEP presence, guided by predefined electrophysiological criteria. IRR, measured by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and scoring consensus were compared across age groups, and signal characteristics were analyzed to identify predictors of disagreement. Results: IRR for adolescent MEP scores was excellent, ICC(C,3) = 0.973, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.972, 0.974], while infant MEPs showed good IRR, ICC(C,3) = 0.784, 95% CI [0.773, 0.794]. Consensus rates were significantly lower for infant data (76.8%) compared to adolescent data (89.1%) (p < 0.001). Greater baseline EMG variability and lower post-stimulation peak-to-peak amplitudes were strongly associated with reduced consensus (p < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: MEP identification using a rater-based scoring protocol is feasible in pediatric cohorts but presents greater challenges in infants due to distinct neurophysiological and behavioral factors. Despite these difficulties, good reliability can still be achieved when multiple trained raters independently score EMG trials. These findings support the need for consensus-driven best practices to guide MEP identification in early developmental research.
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.