Summary of findings 3. Active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation in stroke.
| Active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation in stroke | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people with stroke Intervention: active rPMS plus rehabilitation Comparison: sham rPMS plus rehabilitation Settings: neurological rehabilitation hospital | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation | Risk with active rPMS plus rehabilitation | |||||
| Activities of daily living (ADLs) assessed with Barthel Index Scale, from 0 to 100 | Mean activities of daily living score 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 13 | MD 2 higher (4.91 lower to 8.91 higher) | ‐ | 63 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| Lower limb function | ‐ | ‐ | See comments | ‐ | ‐ | No trials measured this outcome |
| Spasticity (elbow) assessed with Modified Tardieu Scale, from 0 to 5 | Mean spasticity (elbow) score 1.41 | MD 0.41 lower (0.89 lower to 0.07 higher) | ‐ | 63 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| Spasticity (wrist) assessed with Modified Tardieu Scale, from 0 to 5 | Mean spasticity (wrist) score 2.13 | MD 0.2 lower (0.76 lower to 0.36 higher) | ‐ | 63 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| 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; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; 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. | ||||||
aOne study with small sample size; 95% CI overlaps zero.