SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Prognostic accuracy of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials on recovery of upper limb: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prospective prognostic studies examining transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials (TMS-MEP) as predictors of upper limb (UL) motor function and capacity following stroke are influenced by variations in TMS procedures, outcome measures, and the timing of assessments. This prognostic review investigated three key areas: 1) the technical and methodological quality of TMS-MEP studies; 2) the prognostic accuracy for outcome related to muscle strength, muscle synergies and UL-capacity; and 3) the influence of the timing of TMS-MEP on outcomes. Methods: With the QUAPAS (Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies) tool and Chipchase checklist the risk of bias (RoB) and technical quality of TMS-MEP studies were assessed, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predicted values (NPV), and positive predicted values (PPV) were analyzed for muscle strength, muscle synergies, and UL-capacity. Results: Sixteen prospective TMS-MEP studies were included, all of which showed low RoB. Three studies reported all the recommended technical items for TMS testing. After pooling the data, muscle strength showed a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.85), specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.55-1.00), PPV of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.85-0.99) and NPV of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.43-0.78). For muscle synergies, sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.57-0.81), specificity was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.65-1.00), PPV was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.54-1.00) and NPV was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.42-0.87). For UL-capacity, the sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.89), specificity was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78-0.96), positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.79-0.97), and negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.65-0.91). No significant differences in accuracy were observed between type of outcome measures (i.e., muscle strength, muscle synergies or UL-capacity) and no differences were found between groups application of TMS-MEP before or beyond the seventh day after stroke onset. Conclusion: TMS-MEP accurately predicts favorable UL-motor recovery regarding muscle strength, muscle synergy, and UL-capacity. However, its accuracy in identifying individuals who do not regain UL motor function and capacity remains limited early post-stroke.
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.