ArticleBrain topography2026
The Test-Retest Reliability of Non-Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Measures of Corticospinal Pathway Excitability in a Neurologically Intact Adult Population.
Article in Brain topography, 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
The test-retest reliability of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) measurements in healthy adults across the lifespan remains unclear. Determine the test-retest reliability and smallest detectable change (SDC) of motor evoked potential, (MEP), characteristics elicited by non-neuro-navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in neurologically intact adults. In two identical data collection sessions separated by five to seven days in a healthy adult sample was conducted. MEP characteristics assessed were motor threshold (MT) (rest and active conditions), amplitude (active), latency (MEP-L) (active conditions), silent period (SP) (active conditions), and recruitment curve (RC) (active conditions). Muscles investigated were bilateral biceps brachii (BB), extensor carpi radialis (ECR), and abductor pollicis brevis (APB). Test-retest reliability was calculated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and limits of agreement (LOA), and the smallest detectable change was calculated. Acceptable reliability was set at a lower 95% CI of 0.70 or above for the ICC. In healthy adults (n = 51) none of the MEP characteristics were reliable. The lower end of the CI was below acceptable reliability (ICC < 0.7) for all MEP characteristics. Active MT of the non-dominant biceps was most reliable (e.g. ICC = 0.78[0.64-0.87]); whereas the RC demonstrated poor reliability for all muscles. The LOA had small mean differences between sessions with wide 95% LOA demonstrating measurement variability. The SDC were variable across muscles and MEP characteristics. In this study the findings indicate there is still limited evidence for acceptable reliability of TMS outcomes which are interpreted by the lower end of the 95% CI of the ICC.
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.