Evidence Hub

Effects of high- and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor recovery in early stroke patients: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial with clinical, neurophysiological and functional imaging assessments

Juan Du, Fang Yang, Jian-Ping Hu, Jingze Hu, Qiang Xu, Nathan Cong, Qi-Rui Zhang, Ling Liu et al.

NeuroImage: Clinical, 2018

176 citations

Abstract

Background Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can modulate cortical excitability, and may be beneficial for motor recovery after stroke. However, the neuroplasticity effects of rTMS have not been thoroughly investigated in the early stage after stroke. Objective To comprehensively assess the effects of high- and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulations on motor recovery in early stroke patients, using a randomized controlled trial based on clinical, neurophysiological and functional imaging assessments. Methods Sixty hospitalized, first-ever ischemic stroke patients (within 2 weeks after stroke) with motor deficits were randomly allocated to receive, in addition to standard physical therapy, five consecutive sessions of either: (1) High-frequency (HF) rTMS at 10 Hz over the ipsilesional primary motor cortex (M1); (2) Low-frequency (LF) rTMS at 1 Hz over the contralesional M1; (3) sham rTMS. The primary outcome measure was a motor impairment score (Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer) evaluated at baseline, after rTMS intervention, and at 3-month follow-up. Cortical excitability and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data were obtained within 24 h before and after rTMS intervention. Analyses of variance were conducted to compare the recovery effects among the three rTMS groups, assessed using clinical, neurophysiological and fMRI tests. Results Motor improvement was significantly larger in the two rTMS groups than in the control group. The…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

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