ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2026
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Speech-Language Therapy for Post-Stroke Aphasia Recovery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neuromodulation for post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation: established cortical stimulation and emerging network-based targets.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
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: Speech-language therapy (SLT) is standard care for post-stroke aphasia (PSA), and adjunctive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) may further improve language function. Which TMS protocol optimally complements SLT for which language domain at which time point remains unresolved, motivating this network meta-analysis. Objective: To compare TMS protocols combined with SLT across immediate and long-term language outcomes in post-stroke aphasia. Methods: Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 24 January 2026 for randomized trials of TMS plus SLT in post-stroke aphasia. Bayesian network meta-analyses were run in R 4.4.2 with the gemtc and rjags packages, with outcomes grouped into seven immediate and four long-term language domains and effect sizes reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Treatments were ranked by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), and certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Results: Across 26 trials enrolling 1,136 patients, three protocols led across the language domains. LF-rTMS+Music+SLT ranked first for immediate aphasia severity (SUCRA = 96.86%), repetition (97.25%), naming (99.69%), and spontaneous speech (95.67%); LF-rTMS+SLT, for writing (87.73%); and Dual-rTMS+SLT, for immediate functional communication (91.49%) and comprehension (97.57%). Dual-rTMS+SLT was also optimal across all four long-term outcomes (overall aphasia severity 95.82%, comprehension 95.06%, naming 99.74%, repetition 97.90%). Heterogeneity was low-to-moderate (moderate-to-high for immediate aphasia severity), and all Bayesian models converged (PSRF < 1.05). Evidence was moderate-to-high for standard comparisons (LF-rTMS+SLT vs SLT) but low to very low for the highest-ranked novel combinations such as LF-rTMS+Music+SLT, driven by imprecision and indirectness. Conclusion: The optimal TMS-plus-SLT protocol depends on which language domain and which time point matters. LF-rTMS+Music+SLT led the immediate domains, while Dual-rTMS+SLT led the long-term domains. Standard adjunctive comparisons (e.g. LF-rTMS+SLT vs SLT) rest on moderate-to-high certainty evidence, but the highest-ranked novel combinations rest on low-certainty evidence and require head-to-head confirmation.
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.