Evidence Hub

Prognostic accuracy of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials on recovery of upper limb: a systematic review

Schilder JCM, Hoonhorst MHJ, de Vries R, Kwakkel G

Frontiers in neurology, 2026

Abstract

Background: Prospective prognostic studies examining transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials (TMS-MEP) as predictors of upper limb (UL) motor function and capacity following stroke are influenced by variations in TMS procedures, outcome measures, and the timing of assessments. This prognostic review investigated three key areas: 1) the technical and methodological quality of TMS-MEP studies; 2) the prognostic accuracy for outcome related to muscle strength, muscle synergies and UL-capacity; and 3) the influence of the timing of TMS-MEP on outcomes.

Methods: With the QUAPAS (Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies) tool and Chipchase checklist the risk of bias (RoB) and technical quality of TMS-MEP studies were assessed, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predicted values (NPV), and positive predicted values (PPV) were analyzed for muscle strength, muscle synergies, and UL-capacity.

Results: Sixteen prospective TMS-MEP studies were included, all of which showed low RoB. Three studies reported all the recommended technical items for TMS testing. After pooling the data, muscle strength showed a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.85), specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.55-1.00), PPV of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.85-0.99) and NPV of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.43-0.78). For muscle synergies, sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.57-0.81), specificity was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.65-1.00), PPV was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.54-1.00) and NPV was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.42-0.87). For…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free