Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42902225›Full record

SynthesisBMC neurology2026

Comparison of non-invasive neuromodulation for motor function rehabilitation in incomplete spinal cord injury: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yun Han, Junting Han, Haixia Wang, Ying Meng, Jiacai Liang, Xiaona Duan, Muyuan Wang, Yuanyuan Li, Pan Lu, Ziyuan Cao and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Yun Han *Rehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Junting Han *Rehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Haixia WangRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Ying MengRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Jiacai LiangRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Xiaona DuanRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Muyuan WangRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Yuanyuan LiRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Pan LuRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Ziyuan CaoRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China.
Chunhua ZhangRehabilitation Medicine Department, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No.11, Wuyingshan Middle Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, 250031, China. chunhua9804@163.com.

Funding

Shandong Province Medical and Health Science and Technology Project 202416010507
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpinal cord injury (SCI) disrupts structural and functional connectivity between the brain and spinal cord, resulting in severe motor dysfunction. Various neuromodulation techniques have been applied in SCI rehabilitation and have promoted motor recovery to varying degrees. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was therefore undertaken to compare and rank the relative effects of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques on motor-related outcomes in adults with incomplete SCI.

methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating non-invasive neuromodulation for motor function in patients with incomplete SCI, from database inception to September 13, 2025. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using R software. The intervention effects of different non-invasive neuromodulation techniques were compared across motor-related outcomes, including the Lower Extremity Motor Score (LEMS), the 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), step length, gait speed, the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM).

resultsSeventeen RCTs involving 523 participants were included. For lower-limb motor strength, 20-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (20 Hz-rTMS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) both yielded favorable estimates, with iTBS slightly ahead (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.87, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.60 to 1.14) of 20 Hz-rTMS (SMD = 0.83, 95% CrI 0.32 to 1.34). iTBS also conferred the largest gain in gait speed (SMD = 0.52, 95% CrI 0.25 to 0.79), whereas 20 Hz-rTMS produced the greatest reduction in spasticity (mean difference [MD] = - 0.41, 95% CrI - 0.7 to - 0.12). Functional independence on the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) improved most with 10-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (10 Hz-rTMS) (SMD = 1.03, 95% CrI 0.03 to 2.03). For motor evoked potential (MEP) latency, transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) (SMD = - 1.21, 95% CrI - 1.94 to - 0.48) and 10 Hz-rTMS (SMD = - 1.22, 95% CrI - 2.08 to - 0.35) showed the strongest shortening, followed by iTBS (SMD = - 0.84, 95% CrI - 1.53 to - 0.14). MEP amplitude increased most under 10 Hz-rTMS (SMD = 1.003, 95% CrI 0.13 to 1.88).

conclusionsiTBS, 20 Hz-rTMS, 10 Hz-rTMS, and tSCS each appear to support motor recovery after incomplete SCI.However, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Further investigation is required to elucidate the specific mechanisms and clinical utility of different neuromodulation interventions for SCI.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord InjuriesTranscranial Magnetic StimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionIncomplete spinal cord injuryMotor function rehabilitationNon-invasive neuromodulation

Identifiers

PMID42902225
PMCPMC13685187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.