ArticleMethodsX2025
A protocol to optimize non-invasive brain stimulation for post-stroke rehabilitation.
Article in MethodsX, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as an Adjunct to Physiotherapy in Lacunar Stroke.Cureus · 2026Article
- Role of LONP1 in human diseases: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic potential.Cellular & molecular biology letters · 2026Review
- Article
- Biomechanical Modeling, Muscle Synergy-Based Rehabilitation Assessment, and Real-Time Fatigue Monitoring for Piano-Integrated Upper Limb Therapy.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This randomized controlled trial investigates the optimal dosing for post-stroke rehabilitation using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Previous studies demonstrated improvements in cognitive and motor functions with specific intensities of rTMS and tDCS, but this trial explores various frequencies and currents to optimize therapeutic outcomes. A total of 128 post-stroke patients (within 1-6 months of stroke) with paraplegia or hemiplegia are recruited. Patients are divided into four groups for both rTMS (n = 49) and tDCS (n = 49): three groups with different stimulation intensities (1 Hz, 5 Hz, 10 Hz for rTMS; 0.5 mA, 1 mA, 2 mA for tDCS) and a sham control group. Along with this, there is a standard therapy group (n = 30) as control. Participants receive 20 min sessions, five days a week, over six weeks. Cognitive and motor assessments are conducted at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and 6 months to measure short-term and sustained effects.•Hemodynamically stable post-stroke patients randomized in four groups in rTMS and tDCS each and their baseline cognitive and motor function assessed•Application of the two types of therapy for 6 weeks•Checking improvement of cognitive and motor function and compare the improvement among subgroups of recipient of various frequencies and currents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.