Dataset Information

Trends of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation From 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology, which is amongst the most used non-invasive brain stimulation techniques currently available, has developed rapidly from 2009 to 2018. However, reports on the trends of rTMS using bibliometric analysis are rare. The goal of the present bibliometric analysis is to analyze and visualize the trends of rTMS, including general (publication patterns) and emerging trends (research frontiers), over the last 10 years by using the visual analytic tool CiteSpace V. Publications related to rTMS from 2009 to 2018 were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database, including 2,986 peer-reviewed articles/reviews. Active authors, journals, institutions, and countries were identified by WoS and visualized by CiteSpace V, which could also detect burst changes to identify emerging trends. GraphPad Prism 8 was used to analyze the time trend of annual publication outputs. The USA ranked first in this field. Pascual-Leone A (author A), Fitzgerald PB (author B), George MS (author C), Lefaucheur JP (author D), and Fregni F (author E) made great contributions to this field of study. The most prolific institution to publish rTMS-related publications in the last decade was the University of Toronto. The journal Brain Stimulation published most papers. Lefaucheur et al.'s paper in 2014, and the keyword "sham controlled trial" showed the strongest citation bursts by the end of 2018, which indicates increased attention to the underlying work, thereby indicating the research frontiers. This study reveals the publication patterns and emerging trends of rTMS based on the records published from 2009 to 2018. The insights obtained have reference values for the future research and application of rTMS.

SUBMITTER: Zheng KY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7057247 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trends of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation From 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Zheng Kang-Yong KY Dai Guang-Yan GY Lan Yue Y Wang Xue-Qiang XQ

Frontiers in neuroscience 20200226

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology, which is amongst the most used non-invasive brain stimulation techniques currently available, has developed rapidly from 2009 to 2018. However, reports on the trends of rTMS using bibliometric analysis are rare. The goal of the present bibliometric analysis is to analyze and visualize the trends of rTMS, including general (publication patterns) and emerging trends (research frontiers), over the last 10 years by using the visual anal ...[more]

PMID: 32174808

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt had been assumed that suppressing the undamaged contralesional motor cortex by repetitive low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or increasing the excitability of the damaged hemisphere cortex by high-frequency rTMS will promote function recovery after stroke.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of rTMS for improving function in people with stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), the Chinese Stroke Trials Register (April 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2012), EMBASE (1980 to May 2012), Science Citation Index (1981 to April 2012), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to April 2012), CINAHL (1982 to May 2012), AMED (1985 to May 2012), PEDro (April 2012), REHABDATA (April 2012) and CIRRIE Database of International Rehabilitation Research (April 2012). In addition, we searched five Chinese databases, ongoing trials registers and relevant reference lists.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials comparing rTMS therapy with sham therapy or no therapy. We excluded trials that reported only laboratory parameters.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We resolved disagreements by discussion.Main resultsWe included 19 trials involving a total of 588 participants in this review. Two heterogenous trials with a total of 183 participants showed that rTMS treatment was not associated with a significant increase in the Barthel Index score (mean difference (MD) 15.92, 95% CI -2.11 to 33.95). Four trials with a total of 73 participants were not found to have a statistically significant effect on motor function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI -0.99 to 2.01). Subgroup analyses of different stimulation frequencies or duration of illness also showed no significant difference. Few mild adverse events were observed in the rTMS groups, with the most common events being transient or mild headaches (2.4%, 8/327) and local discomfort at the site of the stimulation.Authors' conclusionsCurrent evidence does not support the routine use of rTMS for the treatment of stroke. Further trials with larger sample sizes are needed to determine a suitable rTMS protocol and the long-term functional outcome.

Project description:BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, can manage cerebellar ataxia (CA) by suppressing cerebral cortical excitability. Hence, this study aimed to summarize the efficacy and safety of rTMS for CA patients by meta-analysis.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies published till 20 May 2023. Weighted mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the effect of rTMS treatment. Additionally, the quality of the included studies and the risk of bias were evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.ResultsOverall, eight studies involving 278 CA patients were included in this meta-analysis. rTMS could significantly improve the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) (MD: -2.00; 95% CI: -3.97 to -0.02, p = 0.05), International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) (MD: -3.96; 95% CI: -5.51 to -2.40, p < 0.00001), Timed Up-and-Go test (TUG) (MD: -1.54; 95% CI: -2.24 to -0.84, p < 0.0001), 10-m walk test (10 MWT) (MD10-m steps: -2.44; 95% CI: -4.14 to -0.73, p = 0.005), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (MD: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.15-4.03, p = 0.0004) as compared to sham stimulation. Active rTMS was not significantly different from sham rTMS in changing the duration (MD10-m time: -1.29; 95% CI: -7.98 to 5.41, p = 0.71). No severe adverse events were observed in both sham stimulation and active rTMS groups.ConclusionThis meta-analysis provides limited evidence that rTMS may be beneficial in treating CA patients. However, these findings should be treated with caution due to the limitations of the smaller sample size and the inconsistent approach and target of rTMS treatment. Therefore, more large-scale RCTs are required to further validate our analytical findings.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=295726, identifier: CRD42022295726.

Dataset Information

Trends of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation From 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Publications

Trends of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation From 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets