SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Efficacy comparison of seven non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke: a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review.
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 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for post-stroke upper limb motor dysfunction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy differences between SNM and various peripheral nerve electrical stimulation modalities for NLUTD: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stroke frequently causes upper limb dysfunction, impairing daily activities and quality of life. This study evaluates seven repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation protocols for improving upper limb motor function, muscle tone, and daily living in stroke patients, providing evidence for optimizing non-invasive brain stimulation therapy. Methods: Computerized searches were conducted in the VIP database (VIP), Wan-fang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), PubMed, SinoMed Database (CBM), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to identify publicly published randomized controlled trials on different non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke. The search period was up to November 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 5.4.0) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. R software (version 4.1.1) was used to perform Bayesian network meta-analysis for data comparison and ranking. Results: A total of 28 studies were included, with a total sample size of 1,340 patients, encompassing 7 non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. Probability ranking results indicated the following: for Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), the top three rankings were high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) (29%), continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) (27%), and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (aDCS) (17.5%); for Barthel Index (BI), the top three were aDCS (71.5%), low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation(LF-rTMS) (20.9%), and HF-rTMS (4.4%); for Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), the top three were aDCS (63.6%), cTBS (13%), and HF-rTMS (9.1%); for Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), the top three were intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) (42%), LF-rTMS (24%), and cTBS (16%); for Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), the top three were iTBS (72.6%), aDCS (22.3%), and LF-rTMS (2.8%). Conclusion: Based on the network meta-analysis results and probability ranking evidence, HF-rTMS is most likely to be the most effective intervention for restoring motor function (FMA-UE); aDCS may rank first for both activities of daily living (BI) and motor task performance (WMFT); iTBS appears beneficial for improving muscle tone regulation (MAS) and fine motor ability (ARAT). However, the results for ARAT (6 studies) and MAS (9 studies), based on a smaller number of studies, should be interpreted with caution due to limited evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251019764.
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.