Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on post-stroke patients with cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation therapies for recovery of global cognitive function, attention, memory, and executive function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Another two meta-analyses showed improvement by TMS treatment on ADL for stroke patients. 32,33 However, the main outcomes reflecting ADL in these two reviews were both modified Barthel index (MBI), while our study set a combination of MBI and FIM scores as the target outcomes. Another reason for the different results from our study may lie in the different included literature.…”

“…27,[31][32][33] For the main outcomes, rTMS improved GCF and memory in stroke patients, [31][32][33] whereas tDCS does not. 27,31 In the assessment of attention performance, all the meta-analyses of NIBS showed positive results, 27,[31][32][33] except the tDCS part in the review of Hara et al 31 Due to the methodological restrictions of conventional meta-analysis, the authors of these reviews could only conduct TherapeuTic advances in chronic disease pairwise comparisons. Furthermore, the authors analyzed a single group consisting of several rTMS or tDCS stimulation options.…”

“…Our NMA results are partially compatible with a previous evaluation of the impact of NIBS on cognitive performance, especially on attention and memory deficits following stroke. 27,[31][32][33] For the main outcomes, rTMS improved GCF and memory in stroke patients, [31][32][33] whereas tDCS does not. 27,31 In the assessment of attention performance, all the meta-analyses of NIBS showed positive results, 27,[31][32][33] except the tDCS part in the review of Hara et al 31 Due to the methodological restrictions of conventional meta-analysis, the authors of these reviews could only conduct TherapeuTic advances in chronic disease pairwise comparisons.…”

“…Some findings have been drawn from meta-analyses about the cognitive function of language 25–28 and unilateral neglect, 27–30 despite the lack of and conflicting evidence on attention, memory, and EF. The current meta-analysis for NIBS showed that most studies concluded that TMS had significant effects on attention, memory, working memory, global cognition, 23,31 and activities of daily living 32 (ADL) in post-stroke patients, while the effect of different frequencies of treatment options did not differ significantly, 33 and HF-rTMS had significant improvements in global cognition on left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). 32 The findings of tDCS research are disputed, with some advocating the treatment regardless of disease type for cognitive recovery in neurological disorders.…”

“…The current meta-analysis for NIBS showed that most studies concluded that TMS had significant effects on attention, memory, working memory, global cognition, 23,31 and activities of daily living 32 (ADL) in post-stroke patients, while the effect of different frequencies of treatment options did not differ significantly, 33 and HF-rTMS had significant improvements in global cognition on left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). 32 The findings of tDCS research are disputed, with some advocating the treatment regardless of disease type for cognitive recovery in neurological disorders. 23 Some suggest an acute facilitative effect on repairing attentional impairment, but no improvement in general cognition or working memory.…”