Trial reportCerebellum (London, England)2025
Feasibility of Cerebellar Stimulation for the Treatment of Post-Stroke Dysphagia.
Trial report in Cerebellum (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neuromuscular-related interventions for post-stroke dysphagia: a comprehensive narrative review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Research on transcranial magnetic stimulation for stroke rehabilitation: a visual analysis based on CiteSpace.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) is common and associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to explore the feasibility, safety, and proof of concept of cerebellar rTMS in patients with sub-acute PSD. We intended to recruit 48 participants with PSD. Randomised to: (i) sham treatment twice-daily for five days, (ii) cerebellar rTMS daily for three days, and (iii) cerebellar rTMS twice-daily for five days (1:1:1). Participants were blinded to treatment group. Primary outcomes were feasibility, safety, and functional outcome intake scale (FOIS), dysphagia severity rating scale (DSRS), and feeding status scale (FSS) at two weeks. However, due to lower-than-expected enrolment, the active rTMS groups were combined. We recruited 14 participants in total, (mean 68 years, 57% female). Due to the time-limited funding period, recruitment was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DSRS and FSS trended lower in the combined active rTMS groups at two weeks, i.e. less swallowing impairment. However, at death/discharge FOIS was higher/better (mean, (standard deviation)), 4.0 (2.1) vs. 1.8 (1.0) (p = 0.032) with active TMS, with trends to lower/better DSRS and FSS. There was no difference in the acceptability of treatment between groups. High-intensity (n = 5) vs. low-intensity (n = 5) cerebellar rTMS was associated with lower DSRS 3.0 (1.4) vs. 9.4 (2.7) and FSS 0.6 (0.5) vs. 1.6 (0.5) at 2 weeks, and DSRS 3.0 (1.4) vs. 9.0 (3.7) at hospital discharge or death. Cerebellar rTMS is a feasible ward-based treatment for reducing swallowing impairment. Although enrolment was lower than desired, there was evidence for proof of concept, particularly for high-intensity cerebellar rTMS. Larger studies are warranted.
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.