Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011968.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 23 June 2017see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Stroke Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Ryo Momosaki

    Correspondence to: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine University Hospital, Mizonokuchi, Kanagawa, Japan

    [email protected]

  • Naoki Yamada

    Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

  • Erika Ota

    Global Health Nursing, St. Luke's International University, Graduate School of Nursing Sciences, Tokyo, Japan

  • Masahiro Abo

    Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

Contributions of authors

Ryo Momosaki prepared the protocol and drafted the review with support from Erika Ota. Ryo Momosaki and Naoki Yamada contributed to literature selection, data extraction, and analyses. Masahiro Abo provided critical revisions on intellectual content. All review authors approved the final review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • This research is supported by the Project for Baby and Infant in Research of Health and Development to Adolescent and Young adult (BIRTHDAY) from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED, Japan.

Declarations of interest

Ryo Momosaki: none known.
Naoki Yamada: none known.
Erika Ota: none known.
Masahiro Abo: none known.

Acknowledgements

We thank Hazel Fraser from the Cochrane Stroke Group for providing relevant information, Joshua David Cheyne for helping to develop the search strategy and for conducting searches, Louis‐David Beaulieu and Carmen Krewer for performing re‐analysis and providing unpublished data, and Emma Barber for providing editorial support. Portions of the methods section in this review protocol are based on the text template of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2022 Sep 28

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

Review

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

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011968.pub4

2019 Nov 30

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

Review

Kotomi Sakai, Yuichi Yasufuku, Tomohiko Kamo, Erika Ota, Ryo Momosaki

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011968.pub3

2017 Jun 23

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke

Review

Ryo Momosaki, Naoki Yamada, Erika Ota, Masahiro Abo

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011968.pub2

2015 Nov 23

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke

Protocol

Ryo Momosaki, Naoki Yamada, Erika Ota, Masahiro Abo

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011968

Differences between protocol and review

We divided our evaluation of spasticity into parts of the body (elbow and wrist), although this was not specified in the protocol. We used Covidence software (Covidence 2013) for selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. We included ADLs, upper limb function, lower limb function, muscle strength, spasticity, and death in the 'Summary of findings' table.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 rPMS versus sham, Outcome 1 Muscle strength at the end of treatment.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 rPMS versus sham, Outcome 1 Muscle strength at the end of treatment.

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 1 Activities of daily living at the end of treatment.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 1 Activities of daily living at the end of treatment.

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 2 Activities of daily living at the end of follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 2 Activities of daily living at the end of follow‐up.

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 3 Upper limb function at the end of treatment.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 3 Upper limb function at the end of treatment.

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 4 Upper limb function at the end of follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 4 Upper limb function at the end of follow‐up.

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 5 Spasticity at the end of treatment.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 5 Spasticity at the end of treatment.

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 6 Spasticity at the end of follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only, Outcome 6 Spasticity at the end of follow‐up.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. rPMS compared with any type of control intervention in stroke

rPMS compared with any type of control intervention in stroke

Patient or population: people with stroke
Intervention: rPMS
Comparison: any type of control intervention

Setting: Germany and Canada

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with any type of control intervention

Risk with rPMS

Activities of daily living (ADLs)
assessed with Barthel Index
Scale, from 0 to 100

Mean activities of daily living score was 50

MD 3 lower
(16.35 lower to 10.35 higher)

63
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWa

Upper limb function
assessed with Fugl‐Meyer Assessment
Scale, from 0 to 66

Mean upper limb function score was 13

MD 2 higher
(4.91 lower to 8.91 higher)

63
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWa

Lower limb function ‐ not measured

See comments

No trials measured this outcome

Spasticity (elbow)
assessed with Modified Tardieu Scale
Scale, from 0 to 5

Mean spasticity (elbow) score was 1.41

MD 0.41 lower
(0.89 lower to 0.07 higher)

63
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWa

Spasticity (wrist)
assessed with Modified Tardieu Scale
Scale, from 0 to 5

Mean spasticity (wrist) score was 2.13

MD 0.2 lower
(0.76 lower to 0.36 higher)

63
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWa

Muscle strength
assessed with dorsiflexion strength

Mean muscle strength was 10.44 kg

MD 3 kg higher
(2.44 lower to 8.44 higher)

18
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWa

Death ‐ not reported

See comments

No trials reported this outcome

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on assumed risk in the comparison group and relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect but may be substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

aOne study with small sample size; 95% CI overlaps zero

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. rPMS compared with any type of control intervention in stroke
Comparison 1. rPMS versus sham

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Muscle strength at the end of treatment Show forest plot

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [‐2.44, 8.44]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. rPMS versus sham
Comparison 2. rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Activities of daily living at the end of treatment Show forest plot

1

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.00 [‐16.35, 10.35]

2 Activities of daily living at the end of follow‐up Show forest plot

1

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐14.86, 10.86]

3 Upper limb function at the end of treatment Show forest plot

1

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [‐4.91, 8.91]

4 Upper limb function at the end of follow‐up Show forest plot

1

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.0 [‐2.92, 10.92]

5 Spasticity at the end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Spasticity at the end of treatment (elbow)

1

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.41 [‐0.89, 0.07]

5.2 Spasticity at the end of treatment (wrist)

1

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.76, 0.36]

6 Spasticity at the end of follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Spasticity at the end of follow‐up (elbow)

1

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.48 [‐0.93, ‐0.03]

6.2 Spasticity at the end of follow‐up (wrist)

1

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.13 [‐0.67, 0.41]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. rPMS plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation only