ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Efficacy of dual-target iTBS on gait function and brain activation in stroke patients: a randomized, single-blinded, sham-controlled study.
Article 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 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.
- Functional near-infrared spectroscopy study of intermittent theta burst stimulation on lower-limb motor dysfunction in patients with post-stroke hemiplegia.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) applied to the lower limb motor cortex and the contralateral cerebellar hemisphere, both individually and in combination, on walking function in stroke patients. Secondarily, the study analyzed the effects of iTBS on brain functional connectivity across the three groups. Methods: A total of 63 participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups, with 21 participants in each group: a sham stimulation group, a single-target iTBS group that stimulated the affected lower limb motor cortex, and a dual-target iTBS group that stimulated both the affected lower limb motor cortex and the contralateral cerebellum. All participants received conventional rehabilitation therapy alongside the iTBS treatment. The iTBS was administered daily at 80% of the motor evoked potential for 21 consecutive days. Outcomes were measured using the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for lower extremity (FMA-LE), and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Additionally, three-dimensional gait analysis and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) were utilized to evaluate gait parameters and brain network function. Results: Following the intervention, the dual-target iTBS group exhibited significantly greater improvements in lower limb motor function (FMA-LE) and balance (BBS) compared to both the single-target and sham groups. In gait analysis, the dual-target group demonstrated superior enhancements in key parameters, including step length and swing phase, relative to the single-target group, and achieved broader gains across gait metrics when compared to the sham group. Furthermore, fNIRS analysis revealed enhanced prefrontal-lower limb motor cortex connectivity and network efficiency only in the dual-target group, which correlated with improved gait outcomes. Conclusion: Simultaneous iTBS targeting the affected lower limb motor cortex and the contralateral cerebellar motor region is more effective than single-target stimulation in enhancing lower limb motor function and balance in stroke patients. This enhanced efficacy may arise from the activation of cortical-cerebellar circuits, which improves brain network efficiency and results in better gait 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.