Data_Sheet_1_Comparative efficacy of different repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols for lower extremity motor function in stroke patients: a network meta-analysis.docx

Background

Lower extremity motor dysfunction is one of the most severe consequences after stroke, restricting functional mobility and impairing daily activities. Growing evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can improve stroke patients’ lower extremity motor function. However, there is still controversy about the optimal rTMS protocol. Therefore, we compared and analyzed the effects of different rTMS protocols on lower extremity motor function in stroke patients using network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

We systematically searched CNKI, WanFang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (from origin to 31 December 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or crossover RCTs on rTMS improving lower extremity motor function in stroke patients were included. Two authors independently completed article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. RevMan (version 5.4) and Stata (version 17.0) were used to analyze the data.

Results

A total of 38 studies with 2,022 patients were eligible for the NMA. The interventions included HFrTMS-M1, LFrTMS-M1, iTBS-Cerebellum, iTBS-M1, dTMS-M1, and Placebo. The results of NMA showed that LFrTMS-M1 ranked first in FMA-LE and speed, and HFrTMS-M1 ranked first in BBS, TUGT, and MEP amplitude. The subgroup analysis of FMA-LE showed that HFrTMS-M1 was the best stimulation protocol for post-stroke time > 1 month, and LFrTMS-M1 was the best stimulation protocol for post-stroke time ≤ 1 month.

Conclusion

Considering the impact of the stroke phase on the lower extremity motor function, the current research evidence shows that HFrTMS-M1 may be the preferred stimulation protocol to improve the lower extremity motor function of patients for post-stroke time > 1 month, and LFrTMS-M1 for post-stroke time ≤ 1 month. However, the above conclusion needs further analysis and validation by more high-quality RCTs.

Systematic Review Registration:www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier (CRD42023474215).