SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Transcranial magnetic stimulation-based evaluation of exercise training-induced changes in TMS-derived neurophysiological markers and motor performance in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a well-established, non-invasive technique for assessing motor cortical and corticospinal function, including corticospinal excitability and intracortical inhibition/facilitation. Because commonly used TMS outcomes reflect different neurophysiological mechanisms, they should not be interpreted as a single construct of "cortical plasticity." The effects of structured exercise training on these TMS-derived markers and motor performance in healthy adults remain to be systematically clarified. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effects of exercise training interventions on TMS-derived neurophysiological markers and motor performance in healthy adults. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 31, 2025. We included RCTs involving healthy adults (≥18 years) that compared structured exercise training interventions (e.g., resistance, aerobic, skill, balance, or combined training) with control conditions and used TMS to assess neurophysiological outcomes. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses to calculate standardized mean differences (Hedges' g). Heterogeneity, exploratory subgroup differences, sensitivity, and publication bias were examined. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 14 effect sizes were available for TMS-derived neurophysiological markers and 16 effect sizes were available for motor-performance outcomes. The corresponding analytic samples were 137 exercise and 136 control participants for TMS-derived markers, and 154 exercise and 152 control participants for motor performance. Random-effects meta-analysis showed statistically significant pooled effects for TMS-derived neurophysiological markers (Hedges' g = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.95; Conclusion: Exercise training interventions may improve motor performance and modulate TMS-derived neurophysiological markers in healthy adults, but the certainty and generalizability of these findings are limited. The heterogeneity of TMS markers, moderate between-study heterogeneity, prediction intervals crossing zero, small subgroup sizes, low statistical power of several trials, and possible small-study effects mean that the pooled results should not be interpreted as uniform or definitive effects. Current evidence is insufficient to establish the superiority of any specific training duration or modality. More standardized, adequately powered RCTs are needed to confirm prescription parameters and long-term effects. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261343170, identifier: CRD420261343170.
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.