ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Clinical outcomes of rTMS-augmented rehabilitation for post-stroke language and swallowing dysfunction: a sham-controlled prospective study with theory-informed interpretation.
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
Background: Post-stroke language impairment and dysphagia frequently co-occur and can substantially hinder recovery, daily communication, and safe oral intake. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation, yet evidence on coordinated improvement across both domains remains limited, particularly in studies using clinically interpretable outcome measures. Methods: In this sham-controlled prospective study, 113 patients with post-stroke communication and swallowing impairment were enrolled and allocated to either active rTMS combined with conventional rehabilitation or sham stimulation plus the same rehabilitation program. The intervention lasted 2 weeks, with follow-up assessment after treatment completion. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at follow-up using established measures of language performance, swallowing safety, and oral intake. Safety events and selected care-related indicators were also documented. Because no neurophysiological or neuroimaging markers were collected, mechanistic interpretation was limited to theory-informed inference based on observed clinical patterns. Results: Both groups improved over time. Compared with sham stimulation plus rehabilitation, the active rTMS group showed greater improvement in language-related and swallowing-related outcomes and maintained a more favorable recovery profile at follow-up. Directionally similar trends were observed across secondary clinical indicators, and no increase in safety risk was identified during the study period. Conclusions: rTMS administered before task-oriented rehabilitation was associated with improved short-term recovery in post-stroke language and swallowing function, with acceptable tolerability. These findings support further investigation of rTMS as an adjunct to multidisciplinary neurorehabilitation. Future randomized studies with longer follow-up and direct neurophysiological measures are needed to clarify mechanisms, durability of benefit, and patient-level heterogeneity in treatment response.
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.