Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Motor Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Low Risk of Bias.
Neuromodulation
brain stimulation
rehabilitation
stroke
transcranial magnetic stimulation
Journal
Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society
ISSN: 1525-1403
Titre abrégé: Neuromodulation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9804159
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Sep 2024
24 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
15
04
2024
revised:
07
07
2024
accepted:
29
07
2024
medline:
25
9
2024
pubmed:
25
9
2024
entrez:
25
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has shown promising results in enhancing motor recovery after stroke, but nuances regarding its use, such as the impact of the type and site of stimulation, are not yet established. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk of bias to investigate the effect of rTMS on motor recovery after both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Three databases were searched systematically for all RCTs reporting comparisons between rTMS (including theta-burst stimulation) and either no stimulation or sham stimulation up to August 19, 2022. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE). Secondary outcome measures comprised the Action Research Arm Test, Box and Block Test, Modified Ashworth Scale for the wrist, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS). A total of 37 articles reporting 48 unique comparisons were included. Pooled mean FMA-UE scores were significantly higher in the experimental group than the control group after intervention (MD = 5.4 [MD = 10.7 after correction of potential publication bias], p < 0.001) and at the last follow-up (MD = 5.2, p = 0.031). On subgroup analysis, the improvements in FMA-UE scores, both after intervention and at the last follow-up, were significant in the acute/subacute stage of stroke (within six months) and for patients with more severe baseline motor impairment. Both contralesional and ipsilesional stimulation yielded significant improvements in FMA-UE at the first assessment after rTMS but not at the last follow-up, while the improvements from bilateral rTMS only achieved statistical significance at the last follow-up. Among the secondary outcome measures, only mRS was significantly improved in the rTMS group after intervention (MD = -0.5, p = 0.013) and at the last follow-up (MD = -0.9, p = 0.001). Current literature supports the use of rTMS for motor recovery after stroke, especially when done within six months and for patients with more severe stroke at baseline. Future studies with larger sample sizes may be helpful in clarifying the potential of rTMS in poststroke rehabilitation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39320286
pii: S1094-7159(24)00665-2
doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2024.07.010
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest The authors reported no conflict of interest.