ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2026
Target Interpretability and Functional Mapping of rTMS and Theta-Burst Stimulation of the Cerebellar Vermis and Midline Cerebellum: A Scoping Review.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 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 cerebellar vermis and midline cerebellum contribute to motor, oculomotor, vestibular, cognitive, affective, autonomic, and network-level functions. Human rTMS/TBS studies targeting these regions are methodologically heterogeneous, and reported effects may be over-attributed when anatomical labels, localization methods, or target separability are unclear. We conducted a PRISMA-ScR-guided scoping review of human repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and theta-burst stimulation studies targeting the cerebellar vermis or midline cerebellum. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched from inception to 6 August 2026, with no publication-date restriction. Evidence was synthesized by functional domain, methodological characteristics, and a pragmatic target-interpretability framework based on anatomical labeling, localization, condition separability, and reporting adequacy. Forty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria. Evidence spanned ten functional domains or application-oriented areas and was heterogeneous in populations, protocols, localization, comparator or sham procedures, outcome timing, and adverse-event reporting. Twenty-six studies used direct vermis/midline targets, 12 provided separately interpretable vermis/midline conditions, and 10 used lower-specificity medial/paravermal or midline-related targets. Trial-registry searching yielded 243 unique registrations, identifying ongoing and unpublished studies that contextualize the evidence map; however, no additional study entered the primary synthesis from registry alone. The review contributes a functional evidence map, a pragmatic framework for anatomical attribution, and an author-proposed minimum reporting checklist derived from mapped methodological gaps. The literature supports broad functional investigation of vermal and midline stimulation, but not established therapeutic efficacy. Future studies require more precise targeting, reproducible reporting, rigorous controls, and domain-specific replication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42700330What 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.