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