SynthesisRestorative neurology and neuroscience2025
Optimizing Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Protocols for Upper Limb Motor Recovery in Post-Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Restorative neurology and neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post stroke rehabilitation-a single center community experience.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
- The effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in ameliorating limb motor function disorders after stroke: an umbrella review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive intervention aimed at enhancing neuroplasticity and supporting motor recovery in stroke survivors. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of rTMS in enhancing upper limb motor function and independance in daily activities, utilizing key assessment tools such as the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Modified Barthel Index (MBI), and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT).MethodsA systematic review of 10 studies involving 382 participants was conducted. Outcomes were analyzed for mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using forest plots. Subgroup analyses examined the influence of stroke stage and session length. Evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE framework.ResultsrTMS significantly improved motor performance, with the FMA-UE showing the most consistent and clinically meaningful gains, where the overall standardized mean difference (SMD) was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.82 to 0.74, p < 0.0001, I² = 0%), particularly during subacute and subacute-to-chronic stages. Furthermore, protocols with 15-20 sessions yielded significantly better outcomes (SMD = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.90 to 1.10, p < 0.001) than shorter protocols. ARAT results were less consistent, indicating challenges in fine motor recovery, particularly in chronic stroke populations.ConclusionThis meta-analysis confirms that rTMS effectively enhances upper limb motor function and independence in post-stroke patients. Tailored protocols during subacute stages optimize recovery, though further research is needed to refine protocols and explore long-term outcomes.
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.