Evidence Hub

Four Comparative Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Methods Combined With rTMS on Cognition, Mood, and Quality of Life in Stroke Patients

Li H, Lin X, Chen N, Wu X

Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2025

1,074 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To conduct systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of combining repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with various rehabilitation methods in improving cognitive function, negative mood, and quality of life in stroke patients.

DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across six databases to identify relevant studies. The time frame of the search was from January 1980 to September 2024.

STUDY SELECTION: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials involving 1074 stroke patients were included in the analysis based on predefined eligibility criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION: Outcome indicators assessed included cognitive function, negative mood, and quality of life. Data were extracted and analyzed using Stata for net meta-analysis to evaluate the relative effectiveness of each combined intervention.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Registration number: CRD42024603130. The results indicated that speech rehabilitation (SR) combined with rTMS was the most effective in improving cognitive function (SMD=0.40; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.87; SUCRA=95.1%). Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) combined with rTMS was found to be the most effective in reducing negative mood (SMD=0.91; 95% CI, 0.45-3.23; SUCRA=84.5%) and improving quality of life (SMD=0.49; 95% CI, -0.33 to 1.30; SUCRA=99.4%).

CONCLUSIONS: The combination of SR with rTMS is effective for enhancing cognitive function, whereas CR with rTMS is superior in alleviating negative emotions and improving…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,074 participants or records.

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