↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for impairment and disability in people after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for impairment and disability in people after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2022
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011968.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomohiko Kamo, Yoshitaka Wada, Masatsugu Okamura, Kotomi Sakai, Ryo Momosaki, Shunsuke Taito

Abstract

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive treatment method that can penetrate to deeper structures with painless stimulation to improve motor function in people with physical impairment due to brain or nerve disorders. rPMS for people after stroke has proved to be a feasible approach to improving activities of daily living and functional ability. However, the effectiveness and safety of this intervention for people after stroke remain uncertain. This is an update of the review published in 2019. To assess the effects of rPMS for improving activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); PsycINFO; the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); OTseeker: Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence; the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); Ichushi-Web; and six ongoing trial registries on 5 October 2021. We screened reference lists and contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to assess the therapeutic effect of rPMS for people after stroke. The following comparisons were eligible for inclusion: 1) active rPMS only compared with 'sham' rPMS (a very weak form of stimulation or a sound only); 2) active rPMS only compared with no intervention; 3) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation; and 4) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. The same review authors assessed methods and risk of bias, undertook data extraction, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We contacted trial authors to request unpublished information if necessary. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We included four trials (three parallel-group RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving a total of 139 participants. This result was unchanged from the review published in 2019. Blinding of participants and physicians was well reported in three trials, with no information on whether personnel were blinded in one trial. We judged the overall risk of bias across trials as low. Only two trials (with 63 and 18 participants, respectively) provided sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis. We found no clear effect of rPMS on activities of daily living at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.35 to 10.35; P = 0.66; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.86 to 10.86; P = 0.76; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. We found no statistical difference in improvement of upper limb function at the end of treatment (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.91 to 8.91; P = 0.57; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD 4.00, 95% CI -2.92 to 10.92; P = 0.26; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. We observed a decrease in spasticity of the elbow at the end of follow-up (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.07; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. In terms of muscle strength, rPMS treatment was not associated with improved muscle strength of the ankle dorsiflexors at the end of treatment (MD 3.00, 95% CI -2.44 to 8.44; P = 0.28; 1 trial; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence) when compared with sham rPMS. No studies provided information on lower limb function or adverse events, including death. Based on the GRADE approach, we judged the certainty of evidence related to the primary outcome as low, owing to the small sample size of the studies. There is insufficient evidence to permit the drawing of any conclusions about routine use of rPMS for people after stroke. Additional trials with large sample sizes are needed to provide robust evidence for rPMS after stroke.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Unspecified 5 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Researcher 5 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 62 63%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Unspecified 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 65 66%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,846,077
of 26,179,695 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,768
of 13,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,013
of 441,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,179,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.