Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39162240›Full record

Trial reportNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2024

High-Frequency rTMS Broadly Ameliorates Working Memory and Cognitive Symptoms in Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Yuanwen Liu, Yinan Ai, Jie Cao, Qilin Cheng, Hongwu Hu, Jing Luo, Lei Zeng, Shuxian Zhang, Jie Fang, Li Huang and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. LGALS9 Is Beneficial to the Therapeutic Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Ischemic Stroke.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

12 authors.

Yuanwen LiuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yinan AiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jie CaoDepartment of Education, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Qilin ChengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Hongwu HuDepartment of Acupuncture Rehabilitation, Guangdong Second Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Research and Development in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jing LuoDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lei ZengFifth Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shuxian ZhangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jie FangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Xiamen Humanity Rehabilitation Hospital, Xiamen, China.
Li HuangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Haiqing ZhengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7385-3037
Xiquan HuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5554-6903

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the efficacy and tolerability of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of post-stroke working memory (WM) impairment and its changes in brain function.

methodsIn the present randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled design, 10 Hz rTMS was administered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) of patients with post-stroke WM impairment for 14 days. Measures included WM (primary outcome), comprehensive neuropsychological tests, and the functional near-infrared spectroscopy test. Patients were assessed at baseline, after the intervention (week 2), and 4 weeks after treatment cessation (week 6).

resultsOf 123 stroke patients, 82 finished the trial. The rTMS group showed more WM improvement at week 2 (

conclusionsHigh-frequency rTMS was effective in improving post-stroke WM impairment, with good tolerability, and the efficacy lasted up to 4 weeks, which may be due to the activation of the left DLPFC, right PMC, and right SPL brain regions and their synergistic enhancement of neural remodeling.

Indexed as

Memory, Short-TermStrokeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultAgedCognitive DysfunctionDorsolateral Prefrontal CortexDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMemory DisordersMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsSpectroscopy, Near-InfraredTreatment Outcomecognitive functionrepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationstrokeworking memory

Identifiers

PMID39162240
PMCPMC11528952

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.