Additional Table 3.
Pairwise meta-analysis results of Fugl-Meyer assessment.
| Study | SMD (95%CI) |
|---|---|
| dTMS vs. Sham | |
| Chieffo et al. (2014) | 0.01 (-0.91,0.94) |
| HF vs. LF | |
| Duetal. (2016) | -0.03 (-0.60, 0.55) |
| Liuetal. (2019) | 0.06 (-0.59,0.71) |
| Summary | 0.01 (-0.42, 0.45) |
| HF vs. Sham | τ2=0.13,I2=49% |
| Chang et al. (2010) | -0.05 (-0.82, 0.72) |
| Duetal. (2016) | 0.34 (-0.25, 0.92) |
| Guan et al. (2017) | -0.48 (-1.09, 0.14) |
| Liuetal. (2019) | 0.77(0.09, 1.45) |
| Wang et al. (2019) | 0.32 (-0.75, 1.38) |
| Summary | 0.16 (-0.29, 0.61) |
| iTBS vs. Sham | τ2=0.43, I2=72% |
| Kochetal. (2019) | 0.91 (0.20, 1.62) |
| Linetal. (2019) | -0.18 (-1.06, 0.70) |
| Summary | 0.40 (-0.67, 1.47) |
| LF vs. Sham | τ2=0.07, I2=46% |
| Chen (2018) | 0.50 (0.26, 0.74) |
| Duetal. (2016) | 0.34 (-0.25, 0.92) |
| Elkholy et al. (2014) | 1.07 (0.41, 1.74) |
| Forogh et al. (2017) | -0.99 (-1.82,-0.17) |
| Huang etal. (2018) | -0.14 (-0.77, 0.50) |
| Linetal. (2015) | 0.13 (-0.56, 0.83) |
| Linetal. (2019) | 0.71 (0.03, 1.38) |
| Meng and Song (2017) | 0.61 (-0.29, 1.51) |
| Rastgoo et al. (2016) | 0.38 (-0.25, 1.00) |
| Wang et al. (2012) | 0.16 (-0.64, 0.96) |
| Wang et al. (2016) | 0.44 (-0.28, 1.17) |
| Zhao etal. (2018) | 0.42 (-0.04, 0.88) |
| Summary | 0.34 (0.11,0.58) |
Heterogeneity standard deviation (τ2) has been estimated using the methods of moments and is reported only for comparisons for which is estimable and larger than 0. CI: Confidence interval; dTMS: deep transcranial magnetic stimulation; HF: high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; iTBS: intermittent theta-burst stimulation; LF: low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; SMD: standardized mean difference.