Trial reportTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on poststroke ankle spasticity: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a noninvasive, painless therapy aimed at improving spasticity, with a proposed mechanism that involves neuromodulation through somatosensory and proprioceptive afferent stimulation. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of rPMS on ankle plantar flexor spasticity in participants with stroke. Materials and methods: Included in this prospective, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study were 50 participants with poststroke ankle plantar flexor spasticity graded 1-3 according to Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Participants were randomized into rPMS (n = 25) and sham (n = 25) groups. All participated in a conventional rehabilitation program, while the rPMS group received 10 rPMS sessions over 2 weeks and the sham group received sham rPMS. Assessments at baseline, posttreatment (2nd week), and follow-up (4th week) included MAS, Modified Tardieu Scale (MTS), Barthel Index (stair/mobility), and electrophysiological H/M ratio. Results: A total of 46 participants completed the study. No adverse events related to the stimulation were reported. The rPMS group showed significant improvements in MAS score, MTS angle and grade, and Barthel Index, while no significant changes were observed in the sham group. A significantly greater proportion of participants in the rPMS group (40%) demonstrated MAS score reduction compared to the sham group (4.8%) (p = 0.004). Between-group analysis favored rPMS for MAS and MTS posttreatment and at follow-up. No significant changes in H/M ratios were observed within or between the groups. Conclusion: rPMS can be a valuable adjunct to a traditional rehabilitation program, potentially improving poststroke spasticity. The reductions recorded in MAS and MTS scores in the absence of electrophysiological changes suggest that rPMS may reduce the biomechanical rather than neural component of spasticity. There is a need to define optimal treatment protocols.
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.