SynthesisSpinal cord2026
Effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation on gait and spasticity in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2026. 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
STUDY
designSystematic review and meta-analysis.
objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in improving gait velocity and spasticity in people with spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingStudies included in the review were conducted in various countries; the review was carried out in Spain.
methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted by searching for randomized controlled trials published up to November 2024 comparing the application of TMS with a sham group. Outcome variables were gait velocity and spasticity, measured with the 10 m walking test and the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) respectively. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL and PEDro databases were consulted.
resultsFourteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis and twelve in the quantitative analysis, involving 235 participants with SCI. No significant differences were detected for the effect of TMS on gait velocity (SMD = -0.71; 95%CI: -1.62 to 0.20). However, TMS produced a significant decrease in MAS compared to the control group (MD = -0.56 points; 95%CI: -0.82 to -0.30). Although the subgroup analysis based on the number of pulses showed no significant differences between applications of <1000 and ≥1000 pulses, the ≥1000 pulses subgroup showed significant differences (MD = -0.56 points; 95%CI: -0.83 to -0.30) favoring the experimental group, while the <1000 pulses subgroup showed no significant differences (MD = -0.35 points; 95%CI: -2.03 to 1.34).
conclusionsTMS is effective in improving spasticity in people with SCI with low certainty of evidence. However, TMS has not demonstrated a significant effect on gait velocity, with very low certainty of evidence. Further studies comparing the number of pulses and their effectiveness are warranted to elucidate the findings of this meta-analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41845072What 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.