SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2026
Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke spasticity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for improving spasticity, motor function, and activities of daily living (ADL) in patients with post-stroke spasticity (PSS), and to perform a comprehensive analysis of key factors related to its therapeutic effect.
methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved from four databases. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan, and the quality of evidence was assessed with the GRADEpro tool.
resultsOverall, 13 studies (encompassing 18 RCTs) were included. The results demonstrated that rTMS alleviated PSS (MD = - 0.23, 95% CI: -0.43 to - 0.02, P = 0.03) and improved motor (MD = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.54 to 3.38, P < 0.00001), whereas it showed no significant effect on ADL (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.67, P = 0.10). For spasticity, stimulating the unaffected hemisphere achieved significantly better efficacy (SMD = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.00, P = 0.05), and combined high and low frequency rTMS showed promising effects (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI: -0.94 to -0.36, P < 0.00001). For motor function, rTMS yielded greater improvement in upper limb PSS patients (SMD = 3.58, 95% CI: 2.18 to 4.98, P < 0.00001). Within a certain range, pulse number was positively correlated with motor improvement (β = 2.46, 95% CI: 0.097 to 4.81, P = 0.043).
conclusionModerate to high quality evidence demonstrates that rTMS can potentially alleviate PSS and improve motor function in patients, whereas its efficacy in improving ADL remains unclear, with very low quality of evidence. In addition, stimulation frequency, stimulation site, pulse number, and affected site are key moderators of rTMS efficacy. These findings guide the clinical optimization of rTMS regimens, and future research is required to identify specific parameter thresholds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42397480What 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.