ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2026
Stimulation selectivity in transcranial motor evoked potentials for monitoring during surgery for supratentorial lesions.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026. 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.
- Reply to "Stimulation selectivity in transcranial motor evoked potentials for monitoring during surgery for supratentorial lesions".Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Letter to editor re: "Stimulation selectivity in transcranial motor evoked potentials for monitoring during surgery for supratentorial lesions".Clinical neurophysiology practice · 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: To identify the most selective electrode configuration for monitoring of transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEP) during supratentorial tumor surgery and determine the stimulation threshold at which bilateral corticospinal tract (CST) activation occurs at deeper white matter levels. Methods: Fifty-six patients undergoing resection of supratentorial tumors without preoperative motor deficits were prospectively included. TcMEPs were elicited under general anesthesia using three electrode configurations: C1 ↔ C2, C3 ↔ C4, and C3/4 → Cz. Motor thresholds (MT) were recorded bilaterally from the abductor pollicis brevis (APB), and the selectivity ratio (ipsilateral/contralateral MT) was calculated. Electrode combinations were compared using paired t-tests. Linear regression assessed the influence of age, sex, height, and weight. Results: The C3/4 → Cz montage demonstrated the highest selectivity ratio (median 248%, range: 140-364%), significantly greater than C1 ↔ C2 and C3 ↔ C4 (p < 0.001). Bilateral CST activation with C3/4 → Cz began at 140% of the contralateral MT. Age correlated with lower MTs; sex, height, and weight had no significant effect. Conclusions: C3/4 → Cz is the most selective configuration for eliciting contralateral TcMEP and requires higher stimulation intensity before activating bilateral CST fibers at deeper levels. Significance: This study supports using C3/4 → Cz to optimize TcMEP selectivity and reduce the risk of false-negative monitoring due to deep white matter stimulation.
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.