Effectiveness and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on memory disorder in stroke: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 23% to 55% of patients have memory impairments with a greatly negative effect on daily life 3 months after stroke. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been widely used in the rehabilitation of stroke as it is safe, painless, and noninvasive. Moreover, few studies have investigated the effect of rTMS on poststroke memory disorder (PSMD). However, the efficacy of rTMS is not consistent and the optional stimulation frequency is unclear. Therefore, this protocol aims to evaluate the clinical effect and safety of rTMS on PSMD by analyzing results from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Search strategies will be performed on seven databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and Technology Periodical Database (VIP). Only randomized controlled trials registered before August 2021 will be included. Additionally, the language will be limited to English or Chinese. For the outcome, we will focus on the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test. Additionally, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-mental State Examination, Modified Barthel Index, and advent events will be included. Two authors will independently select the study, extract data, and assess quality. Moreover, disagreements will be resolved by the third author. STATA 14 and Review Manager 5.4 will be used to perform the analysis. We will evaluate bias risk in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. To assess the quality of evidence, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method will be employed. RESULTS: This study will provide a comprehensive analysis of the current evidence on rTMS for PSMD. CONCLUSION: A reliable conclusion regarding whether rTMS is an effective and safe intervention for patients with PSMD and the effect of stimulation frequency and sham stimulation will be provided. This study will provide new insights for TMS in treating PSMD, and offer appropriate treatmentoptions to patients and clinicians. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021282439.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".