Trial reportEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2025
High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for stroke patients lower extremity function: primary motor cortex versus cerebellar stimulation. A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of physical and rehabilitation 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has recently been used to great effect to enhance the motor function and performance of patients with stroke by modifying cerebral cortex excitability. But few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of stimulating the M1 and cerebellar regions in using rTMS to improve lower limb motor function in stroke patients.
aimTo assess the effectiveness of high-frequency (HF) repetitive TMS (rTMS) applied to the primary motor cortex (M1) versus the cerebellar region for improving lower limb dsyfunction and maintaining balance ability in people suffering from stroke.
designRandomized, double-blind, sham controlled clinical trial.
settingDepartment of rehabilitation medicine in a general hospital. POPULATION: Patients with stroke with first unilateral lesions were enrolled in the study.
methodsSeventy-one patients were randomly allocated to sham stimulation group, acerebellum group, and M1 group. Each group received rTMS alongside their routine rehabilitation. The M1 group received stimulation to the affected lower limb motor cortex, while the cerebellum group received stimulation to the contralesional cerebellum. The sham stimulation group had a non-stimulating setup. The stimulation parameters were as follows: the stimulation intensity of 80%RMTand frequency of 10 Hz. The stimulation lasted 20 minutes per session, comprising 3 seconds of stimulation followed by a 17-second interval. This equated to 1,800 pulses per day, five times a session for two weeks.
resultsBefore the intervention, no significant differences was found in terms of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the Lower Extremities (FAM-LE), the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), movement trajectory length, center of movement trajectory area and the Modified Barthel Index (MBI) (P>0.05). Two weeks later, however, the M1 group and cerebellar group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the FAM-LE, BBS and MBI (P<0.05). The cerebellar and M1 groups outperformed the sham stimulation group in terms of movement trajectory measures (P<0.05), with the cerebellar group achieving the best results.
conclusionsBoth M1 and cerebellar HF stimulation have been shown to play a positive role in the functionality of the lower limbs and the ability of balance in stroke patients, with cerebellar stimulation proving to be especially efficacious in the amelioration of balance. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: M1 and cerebellar can improve stroke patient lower limb function, but cerebellar maybe a more perfect region for improving balance function compare with M1.
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.