SynthesisPloS one2025
Enhancing functional motor outcomes in chronic stroke: A systematic review of the growing role of non-invasive brain stimulation.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of motor imagery augmented with central non-invasive brain stimulation versus peripheral electrical stimulation for upper extremity rehabilitation post-stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation combined with cognitive training on cognitive functions in older people with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNon-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) promotes functional recovery by enhancing neuroplasticity and reorganizing brain networks. It is hypothesized that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), or intermittent θ-burst stimulation (i-TBS) as well as trans direct current stimulation (tDCS) can modulate synaptic connectivity, through magnetic or electric stimuli, directly on the brain area. This systematic review aims to address the lack of comprehensive syntheses focusing on the comparative effectiveness of NIBS techniques, including tDCS, rTMS, and iTBS, on distinct motor domains (upper limb, lower limb, and vocal/swallowing functions) in chronic stroke patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search was conducted for all peer-reviewed articles published from January 2010 through September 2023, using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PEDro, RehabData, and Web of Science. This systematic review was performed following the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with a registration number in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2023) CRD42023458370. A total of 58 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis: 27 focused on upper limb rehabilitation, 13 on lower limb function, 13 on the combination of NIBS and robotic therapy, and 6 on vocal or swallowing functions. Most studies (78%) were randomized controlled trials. Among the NIBS techniques, tDCS showed stronger evidence for gait and balance recovery, while rTMS appeared more effective for upper limb function. Overall, the majority of studies presented a low risk of bias, although methodological issues such as inadequate randomization or blinding affected the reliability of some findings.
conclusionWe have systematically reviewed the literature on the use of NIBS to enhance motor outcomes (upper limb, lower limb, and vocal/swallowing functions) in individuals with chronic stroke. Findings indicate that rTMS demonstrates greater efficacy in improving upper limb motor function, whereas tDCS appears to be more effective in enhancing gait and balance recover.
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.