4.7 Review

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for stroke with spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 268, Issue 11, Pages 4013-4022

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-10058-4

Keywords

Stroke; Spasticity; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Randomized-controlled trials; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The meta-analysis did not find a significant reduction in the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) for post-stroke spasticity patients with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) compared to sham treatment. However, a significant effect of rTMS was observed in the change score analysis within the treatment groups, indicating potential benefits. No significant placebo effect was observed in the sham treatment groups.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available