Skip to main content
. 2019 Nov 30;2019(11):CD011968. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011968.pub3

Summary of findings 2. Active rPMS only compared with no intervention in stroke.

Active rPMS only compared with no intervention in stroke
Patient or population: people with stroke
Intervention: active rPMS
Comparison: no intervention
Setting:
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No. of participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Risk with no intervention Risk with rPMS
Activities of daily living (ADLs)
 assessed with Barthel Index
 Scale, from 0 to 100 See comments No trials measured this outcome
Upper limb function
 assessed with Fugl‐Meyer Assessment
 Scale, from 0 to 66 See comments No trials measured this outcome
Lower limb function See comments No trials measured this outcome
Spasticity (elbow)
 assessed with Modified Tardieu
 Scale, from 0 to 5 See comments No trials measured this outcome
Spasticity (wrist)
 assessed with Modified Tardieu
 Scale, from 0 to 5 See comments No trials measured this outcome
Muscle strength
 assessed with dorsiflexion strength See comments No trials measured this outcome
Death See comments No trials measured 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; rPMS: repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.