Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for stroke with spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for stroke with spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for stroke with spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for stroke with spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2021
Overview
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) can be used to manage post-stroke spasticity, but a meta-analysis of the recent randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. Our aim is to perform a meta-analysis of the RCTs that investigated the efficacy of rTMS in patients with post-stroke spasticity. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible papers published up to February 2020. The primary outcome was the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), measured as the effect of rTMS compared with controls and after rTMS (using a change score calculated separately in the active and sham treatment groups). Finally, five papers and eight data sets were included. rTMS had no significant benefit on MAS in patients with post-stroke spasticity compared to sham treatment (WMD = − 0.29, 95% CI − 0.58, 0.00; P = 0.051). When analyzing the change score in the treatment groups, a significant effect of rTMS was observed (WMD = − 0.27, 95% CI − 0.51, − 0.04; P = 0.024). When analyzing the change score in the sham treatment groups, no significant effect of sham treatment was observed, indicating no placebo effect (WMD = 0.32, 95% CI: − 0.40, 1.04; P = 0.387). We included the sample size, year of publication, percentage of male patients, and age difference in each study as covariates, and performed a meta-regression. The results showed no association between these variables and the MAS. Compared with sham stimulation, rTMS did not show a significant reduction in MAS for the patients who experienced post-stroke spasticity, but the patients reported a better outcome in MAS on a before-after scenario.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
