ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post stroke rehabilitation-a single center community experience.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a form of non-invasive neuromodulation, has been shown to improve recovery post stroke. The definitive mechanism by which it alleviates symptoms remains elusive and as such many questions as to how to predict and improve clinical response are left unanswered. We conducted a retrospective chart review of our experience using rTMS combined with physiotherapy in post stroke patients at our clinic between 2014 and 2025. We reviewed 35 charts and found 23 that qualified. The mean age was 59.6 years, 57 percent male. Overall, 70 percent improved significantly in one or more measurements. Patients who received bilateral stimulation were 2.8 (95 percent confidence interval 1.4-7.8) times more likely to improve compared to patients who received unilateral stimulation. The mean time from the stroke to treatment in the improved group was 13.1 (4-35) months while in the unimproved group was 33.3 (5-80) months (
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.