SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Completion rate and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation for upper limb dysfunction after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), has been widely used as an adjunctive intervention for upper limb motor recovery after stroke; however, the treatment completion rates and comparative safety profiles across different NIBS modalities have not been systematically evaluated. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the treatment completion rates of various NIBS interventions for post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation. We systematically searched six databases and trial registries (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to January 20, 2025, with an updated search conducted to April 15, 2026. Random-effects single-arm meta-analyses using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation were performed to pool completion rates, and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis estimated relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs); treatments were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261309536). Fifty-five RCTs comprising 68 comparisons and 2,640 participants were included. The pooled intervention group completion rate was 94.9% (95% CI: 93.3-96.4%; I Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261309536, PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD420261309536).
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.