SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
A systematic review on multifocal non-invasive brain stimulation on motor function enhancement.
Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multifocal non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been highlighted as a promising approach for modulating motor functions by simultaneously stimulating several brain areas. However, the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of this technique are still not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of multifocal NIBS in promoting motor recovery, considering the targeted brain regions, stimulation protocols, and both behavioral and neurophysiological outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to February 10, 2025, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. The inclusion criteria encompassed human studies utilizing concurrent dual-site or multifocal NIBS with pre- and post-intervention behavioral assessments. Studies on deep brain stimulation, corticocortical paired associative stimulation, sequential stimulation, case reports, and reviews were excluded. Results: Out of 1,453 initial records, 9 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies primarily focused on stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and primary motor cortex. Neurophysiological data obtained from electroencephalography and functional magnetic resonance imaging indicated network-level modulations. Behavioral outcomes were variable, with some studies showing improvements in response inhibition, and motor learning, while others found no significant differences compared to sham stimulation. Conclusion: While multifocal NIBS shows promise as a novel therapeutic approach, its efficacy remains uncertain due to variations in study designs, small sample sizes, and inconsistent results. Future research should focus on larger sample size, multi-arm trials and inclusion of neurophysiological biomarkers. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420250646196, identifier: CRD420250646196.
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.