ReviewFrontiers in neurology2025
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for enhancing motor function after spinal cord injury: a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 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.
- Additive effect of tDCS and neuromotor recruitment on functional recovery in chronic paraplegia: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is associated with improved functional recovery and time-dependent changes in apoptosis-related execution-phase markers after spinal cord injury.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Ventral Cervical Epidural Abscess Presenting as a Stroke Mimic With Paradoxical Thoracic Sensory Level: Diagnostic Challenges and Multimodal Management.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
- Screening the optimal rTSMS frequency to orchestrate immune-fibrotic remodeling for adult spinal cord repair.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal cord injury (SCI) often leads to disabilities that significantly impact quality of life, highlighting the need for effective rehabilitation strategies. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has emerged as a promising neuromodulatory approach to enhance neuronal plasticity and promote motor recovery following SCI. This narrative review examines the current state of evidence regarding the therapeutic use of rTMS for motor function recovery after SCI and outlines key methodological considerations to guide future research. To address these aims, we summarize various rTMS techniques and evaluate their overall efficacy in improving motor function in individuals with SCI. Among the fourteen studies reviewed, early rTMS protocols primarily utilized low-frequency stimulation, whereas more recent approaches have adopted higher frequencies and more complex patterned protocols. Despite considerable heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, most studies reported beneficial effects of rTMS, including reduction in spasticity and improvements in voluntary motor function of both upper and lower limbs. These findings demonstrate that rTMS holds promise as an effective tool for SCI rehabilitation, with limited to moderate evidence supporting reductions in spasticity, increased muscle strength, and enhanced functional outcomes. However, many of these findings are derived from small sample sizes, varied protocols, and studies lacking rigorous control conditions. The review emphasizes the need for standardized functional and electrophysiological assessments to systematically evaluate motor outcomes following rTMS interventions. Additionally, larger, well-controlled clinical trials incorporating consistent physical therapy protocols are essential to confirm the efficacy of rTMS.
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.