Summary of findings 4. Active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only in stroke.

Active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only in stroke
Patient or population: people with stroke Intervention: active rPMS plus rehabilitation Comparison: rehabilitation only Settings: ‐
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with rehabilitation only	Risk with active rPMS plus rehabilitation
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.