The Use of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

A total fucking waste because a protocol on use of rTMS for stroke rehab should have been written years ago. Such fucking incompetence out there in the stroke world and NO ONE is fixing such failures.  I've written 32 posts on this since January 2013 and obviously still NO protocol has been written up. Incompetence in full force once again, not a problem for these researchers, only stroke survivors feel the results of this fucking incompetence. 

 Rant started

Yes I'm being a very bad cop but for years there has been research on rehab that looked promising but never seems to be translated into usable interventions for survivors.  Either we replace all the existing stroke medical doctors with newer ones that still have a sense of desire to help or we force our doctors to actually do their job.

Rant completed, I feel better now.

Of course I did this same rant 2 years ago and nothing has changed.

The Use of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

Author links open overlay panelAnaDionísioMSc*†‡Isabel CatarinaDuarteMSc*‡MiguelPatrícioPhD‡§MiguelCastelo-BrancoMD, PhD*‡§‖

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.09.008Get rights and content

Objectives

Stroke is a leading cause of disability. Alternative and more effective techniques for stroke rehabilitation have been sought to overcome limitations of conventional therapies. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) arises as a promising tool in this context. This systematic review aims to provide a state of the art on the application of rTMS in stroke patients and to assess its effectiveness in clinical rehabilitation of motor function.

Methods

Studies included in this review were identified by searching PubMed and ISI Web of Science. The search terms were (rTMS OR “repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation”) AND (stroke OR “cerebrovascular accident” OR CVA) AND (rehab OR rehabilitation OR recover*). The retrieved records were assessed for eligibility and the most relevant features extracted to a summary table.

Results

Seventy out of 691 records were deemed eligible, according to the selection criteria. The majority of the articles report rTMS showing potential in improving motor function, although some negative reports, all from randomized controlled trials, contradict this claim. Future studies are needed because there is a possibility that a bias for non-publication of negative results may be present.

Conclusions

rTMS has been shown to be a promising tool for stroke rehabilitation, in spite of the lack of standard operational procedures and harmonization. Efforts should be devoted to provide a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms and protocol standardization.