Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Acute brain ischemia causes changes in several neural networks and related cortico-subcortical excitability, both in the affected area and in the apparently spared contralateral hemisphere. The modulation of these processes through modern techniques of noninvasive brain stimulation, namely repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), has been proposed as a viable intervention that could promote post-stroke clinical recovery and functional independence. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the current evidence from the literature on the efficacy of rTMS applied to different clinical and rehabilitative aspects of stroke patients. A total of 32 meta-analyses published until July 2019 were selected, focusing on the effects on motor function, manual dexterity, walking and balance, spasticity, dysphagia, aphasia, unilateral neglect, depression, and cognitive function after a stroke. Only conventional rTMS protocols were considered in this review, and meta-analyses focusing on theta burst stimulation only were excluded. Overall, both HF-rTMS and LF-rTMS have been shown to be safe and well-tolerated. In addition, the current literature converges on the positive effect of rTMS in the rehabilitation of all clinical manifestations of stroke, except for spasticity and cognitive impairment, where definitive evidence of efficacy cannot be drawn. However, routine use of a specific paradigm of stimulation cannot be recommended yet due to a significant level of heterogeneity of the studies in terms of protocols to be set and outcome measures that have to be used. Future studies need to preliminarily evaluate the most promising protocols before going on to multicenter studies with large cohorts of patients in order to achieve a definitive translation into daily clinical practice.

Keywords

neuroplasticity neurorehabilitation noninvasive brain stimulation stroke

Introduction

Background

Stroke is a common acute neurovascular disorder that causes disabling long-term limitations to daily living activities. The most common consequence of a stroke is motor deficit of variable degree,¹ although nonmotor symptoms are also relevant and often equally disabling.² To date, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no validated treatment that is able to restore the impaired functions by a complete recovery of the damaged tissue. Indeed, stroke management basically consists of reducing the initial ischemia in the penumbra, preventing future complications, and promoting a functional recovery using physiotherapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and other conventional treatments.^3,4

Ischemic damage is associated with significant metabolic and electrophysiological changes in cells and neural networks involved in the affected area. From a pure electrophysiological perspective, however, beyond the affected area, there is a local shift in the balance between the inhibition and excitation of both the affected and contralateral hemisphere, consisting of increased excitability and disinhibition (reduced activity of the inhibitory circuits).^3,5 In addition, subcortical areas and spinal regions may be altered.^3,5 In particular, the role of the uninjured hemisphere seems to be of utmost significance in post-stroke clinical and functional recovery.

Different theoretical models have been proposed to explain the adaptive response of the brain to acute vascular damage. According to the vicariation model, the activity of the unaffected hemisphere contributes to the functional recovery after a stroke through the replacement of the lost functions of the affected areas. The interhemispheric competition model considers the presence of mutual inhibition between the hemispheres, and the damage caused by a stroke disrupts this balance, thus producing a reduced inhibition of the unaffected hemisphere by the affected side. This results in increased inhibition of the affected hemisphere by the unaffected side. More recently, a new model, called bimodal balance recovery, has been proposed.^3,5 It introduces the concept of a structural reserve, which describes the extent to which the nondamaged neural pathways contribute to the clinical recovery. The structural reserve determines the prevalence of the interhemispheric imbalance over vicariation. When the structural reserve is high, the interhemispheric competition model can predict the recovery better than the vicariation model, and vice versa.³

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

One of the proposed interventions to improve stroke recovery, by the induction of neuromodulation phenomena, is based on methods of noninvasive brain stimulation. Among them, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a feasible and painless neurophysiological technique widely used for diagnostic, prognostic, research, and, when applied repetitively, therapeutic purposes.^6–9 By electromagnetic induction, TMS generates sub or suprathreshold currents in the human cortex in vivo and in real time.^10,11

The most common stimulation site is the primary motor cortex (M1), that generates motor evoked potentials (MEPs) recorded from the contralateral muscles through surface electromyography electrodes.¹¹ The intensity of TMS, measured as a percentage of the maximal output of the stimulator, is tailored to each patient based on the motor threshold (MT) of excitability. Resting MT (rMT) is found when the target muscle is at rest, it is defined as the minimal intensity of M1 stimulation required to elicit an electromyography response with a peak-to-peak amplitude > 50 µV in at least 5 out of 10 consecutive trials.¹¹ Alternatively TMS MTAT 2.0 software (http://www.clinicalresearcher.org/software.htm) is a free tool for TMS researchers and practitioners. It provides four adaptive methods based on threshold-tracking algorithms with the parameter estimation by sequential testing, using the maximum-likelihood strategy for estimating MTs. Active MT (aMT) is obtained during a tonic contraction of the target muscle at approximately 20% of the maximal muscular strength.¹¹

The rMT is considered a basic parameter in providing the global excitation state of a central core of M1 neurons.¹¹ Accordingly, rMT is increased by drugs blocking the voltage-gated sodium channels, where the same drugs may not have an effect on the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic functions. In contrast, rMT is reduced by drugs increasing glutamatergic transmission not mediated by the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, suggesting that rMT reflects both neuronal membrane excitability and non-NMDA receptor glutamatergic neurotransmission.¹² Finally, the MT increases, being often undetectable, when a substantial portion of M1 or the cortico-spinal tract is damaged (i.e. by stroke or motor neuron disease), and decreases when the motor pathway is hyperexcitable (such as epilepsy).¹³

Repetitive (rTMS) is a specific stimulation paradigm characterized by the administration of a sequence of consecutive stimuli on the same cortical region, at different frequencies and inter sequence intervals. As known, rTMS can transiently modulate the excitability of the stimulated cortex, with both local and remote effects outlasting the stimulation period. Conventional rTMS modalities include high-frequency (HF-rTMS) stimulation (>1 Hz) and low-frequency (LF-rTMS) stimulation (⩽1 Hz).¹¹ High-frequency stimulation typically increases motor cortex excitability of the stimulated area, whereas low-frequency stimulation usually produces a decrease in excitability.¹⁴ The mechanisms by which rTMS modulates the brain are rather complex, although they seem to be related to the phenomena of long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD).¹⁵

When applied after a stroke, rTMS should ideally be able to suppress the so called ‘maladaptive plasticity’^16,17 or to enhance the adaptive plasticity during rehabilitation. These goals can be achieved by modulating the local cortical excitability or modifying connectivity within the neuronal networks.¹⁰

rTMS in stroke rehabilitation: an overview

According to the latest International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) guidelines on the therapeutic use of rTMS,¹⁰ there is a possible effect of LF-rTMS of the contralesional motor cortex in post-acute motor stroke, and a probable effect in chronic motor stroke. An effect of HF-rTMS on the ipsilesional motor cortex in post-acute and chronic motor stroke is also possible.

The potential role of rTMS in gross motor function recovery after a stroke has been assessed in a recent comprehensive systematic review of 70 studies by Dionisio and colleagues.¹⁸ The majority of the publications reviewed report a role of rTMS in improving motor function, although some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were not able to confirm this result,^19–23 as shown by a recent large randomized, sham-controlled, clinical trial of navigated LF-rTMS.²⁴ It has also been suggested that rTMS can specifically improve manual dexterity,¹⁰ which is defined as the ability to coordinate the fingers and efficiently manipulate objects, and is of crucial importance for daily living activities.²⁵ Notably, most of the studies focused on motor impairment in the upper limbs, whereas limited data is available on the lower limbs.¹⁸ Walking and balance are frequently impaired in stroke patients and significantly affect the quality of life (QoL),^26,27 and rTMS might represent a valid aid in the recovery of these functions.^28,29 Spasticity is another common complication after a stroke, consisting of a velocity-dependent increase of muscular tone,³⁰ and for which rTMS has been proposed as a rehabilitation tool.³¹

Dysphagia is highly common in stroke patients, it impairs the global clinical recovery, and predisposes to complications.³² It has been pointed out that rTMS targeting the M1 area representing the muscles involved in swallowing may contribute to the treatment of post-stroke dysphagia.³³

Nonmotor deficit is also a relevant post-stroke disability that negatively impacts the QoL. Aphasia is a very common consequence of stroke, affecting approximately 30% of stroke survivors and significantly limiting rehabilitation.³⁴ According to the IFCN guidelines, to date, there is no recommendation for LF-rTMS of the contralesional right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). Similarly, no recommendation for HF-rTMS or intermittent theta burst stimulation (TBS) of the ipsilesional left IFG or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in Broca’s aphasia has been currently approved.¹⁰ The same is true for LF-rTMS of the right superior temporal gyrus in Wernicke’s aphasia.¹⁰

Neglect is the incapacity to respond to tactile or visual contralateral stimuli that are not caused by a sensory-motor deficit.³⁵ Although hard to treat, rTMS has been proposed as a tool for neglect rehabilitation.³⁶ However, the IFCN guidelines state that currently there is no recommendation for LF-rTMS of the contralesional left posterior parietal cortex, or for HF-rTMS of the ipsilesional right posterior parietal cortex.¹⁰ In a recent systematic review, most of the included studies supported the use of TMS for the rehabilitation of aphasia, dysphagia, and neglect, although the heterogeneity of stimulation protocols did not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.³⁷

Post-stroke depression is a relevant complication of cerebrovascular diseases.³⁸ The role of rTMS in the management of major depressive disorders is well documented,^39,40 and currently, rTMS is internationally approved and indicated for the treatment of major depression in adults with antidepressant medication resistance, and in those with a recurrent course of illness, or in cases of moderate-to-severe disease severity.³⁹ In major depression disorders, according to the IFCN guidelines, there is a clear antidepressant effect of HF-rTMS over the left DLPFC, a probable antidepressant effect of LF-rTMS on the right DLPFC, and probably no differential antidepressant effect between right LF-rTMS and left HF-rTMS. Moreover, there is currently no recommendation for bilateral stimulation combining HF-rTMS of the left DLPFC and LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC. The mentioned guidelines also state that the antidepressant effect when stimulating DLPFC is probably additive, and possibly potentiating, to the efficacy of antidepressant drugs.¹⁰ However, no specific recommendation currently addresses the use of rTMS in post-stroke depression. Recently, rTMS has been proposed as a treatment option for the late-life depression associated with chronic subcortical ischemic vascular disease, the so called ‘vascular depression’.^41–44 Three studies tested rTMS efficacy in vascular depression (one was a follow-up study with citalopram). Although presenting positive findings, further trials should refine clinical and diagnostic criteria to assess its impact on antidepressant efficacy.⁴⁵

Approximately 25–30% of stroke patients develop an immediate or delayed cognitive impairment or an overt picture of vascular dementia.⁴⁶ There is evidence of an overall positive effect on cognitive function for both LF-rTMS⁴⁷ and HF-rTMS,⁴⁸ supported by studies on experimental models of vascular dementia.^49–52 Nonetheless, the few trials examining the effect on stroke-related cognitive deficit produced mixed results.^53–56 In particular, two studies found no effect on cognition when stimulating the left DLPFC at 1 Hz and 10 Hz,^53,54 whereas a pilot study found a positive effect on the Stroop interference test with HF-rTMS over the left DLPFC in patients with vascular cognitive impairment without dementia.⁵⁵ However, this finding was not replicated in a follow-up study.⁵⁶ To summarize, rTMS can induce beneficial effects on specific cognitive domains, although data are limited and their clinical significance needs to be further validated. Major challenges exist in terms of appropriate patient selection and optimization of the stimulation protocols.⁵⁷

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is the pain resulting from an ischemic lesion of the central nervous system.⁵⁸ It represents a relatively common complication after a stroke, although it is often under-recognized and, therefore, undertreated.⁵⁹ According to the IFCN guidelines for the use of rTMS in the treatment of neuropathic pain, there is a definite analgesic effect of HF-rTMS of contralateral M1 to the pain side, and LF-rTMS of contralateral M1 to the pain side is probably ineffective. In addition, there is currently no recommendation for cortical targets other than contralateral M1 to the pain side.¹⁰ Notably, rTMS might be effective in drug-resistant CPSP patients.⁵⁸ A recent systematic review that included nine HF-rTMS studies suggested an effect on CPSP relief, but also underlined the insufficient quality of the studies considered.⁶⁰

Study objective

In this article, we aim to provide an up-to-date overview of the most recent evidence on the efficacy of rTMS in the rehabilitation of stroke patients. Although several studies have been published, a conclusive statement supporting a systematic use of rTMS in the multifaceted clinical aspects of stroke rehabilitation is still lacking.

Methods

Search strategy

A literature review was performed on all the meta-analyses on conventional rTMS protocols in post-stroke rehabilitation studies indexed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, from database inception until 31 July 2019. We focused on the recovery of motor function, manual dexterity, walking and balance, spasticity, dysphagia, aphasia, unilateral neglect, post-stroke depression, vascular depression, cognitive function, and CPSP.

Search queries and results

Pubmed: ((“transcranial magnetic stimulation” [MeSH Terms] OR (“transcranial”[All Fields] AND “magnetic”[All Fields] AND “stimulation” [All Fields]) OR “transcranial magnetic stimulation”[All Fields] OR (“repetitive”[All Fields] AND “transcranial”[All Fields] AND “magnetic”[All Fields] AND “stimulation”[All Fields]) OR “repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation”[All Fields]) AND (“stroke”[MeSH Terms] OR “stroke”[All Fields])) AND ((Meta-Analysis[ptyp] OR systematic[sb]) AND “humans”[MeSH Terms] AND English[lang]). Results: 59.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: “transcranial magnetic stimulation stroke in Title Abstract Keyword”. Results: 4.

Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation” AND stroke AND meta-analysis) AND DOCTYPE (ar OR re) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”). Results: 46.

Web of Science Core Collection: TOPIC: (“repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation” AND stroke AND meta-analysis) Refined by: LANGUAGES: (ENGLISH) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (REVIEW OR ARTICLE) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI. Results: 30.

Study selection

To be included, a study had to: Use conventional rTMS protocols for post-stroke patients recovery, it is mentioning that studies using other stimulation techniques in addition to rTMS were included only when rTMS data could be independently extracted from the meta-analysis, an exception was made for the studies where data from other techniques (TBS) were pooled in the same meta-analysis but represented only a minority of the total amount of the analyzed studies. Describe a systematic process for searching for and selecting relevant articles. Perform the statistical analysis.

Two independent authors (FF and GL) screened all titles and abstracts of the identified publications. Disagreements were solved by the consensus of a third author (MP). Duplicated entries, retracted publications, studies on other diseases or conditions different from stroke, works on animals, studies without statistical analysis, non-English written papers, publications that are not research studies (i.e. commentaries, letters, editorials, reviews, etc.), and any other study that did not fit within the scope of this review, were excluded. Publications listed in the references were also reviewed in search of more data (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flow diagram showing the search strategy, the number of records identified, the excluded articles, and the studies eventually included.⁶¹

Data extraction

Two authors (RB and GP) independently extracted the following information from the retrieved meta-analyses: type and number of studies included, stimulation parameters and settings, main findings. Disagreements were solved by a third author (AAG). The relevant data are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of the main characteristics and findings obtained from the meta-analyses of rTMS and stroke rehabilitation.

Clinical feature	References	Studies included (study design)	Stimulation settings	Main findings
Motor function	Xiang et al.⁶²	43 RCTs (8 cross-over)	Site: affected M1, unaffected M1, bilateral M1; premotor cortex of the unaffected hemisphere Frequency: 1–25 Hz (7 studies with TBS) Pulses per session: 160–1800 Session number: 1–24 Intensity: 80–130% rMT, 80–120% aMT	Positive effect of rTMS (particularly at 1 Hz) on limb motor recovery and ADL. HF-rTMS modulated MEP. No difference regarding rMT versus aMT, stimulation intensity or frequencies, number of pulses, stimulation number and sites. More pronounced effects for 1–7 sessions, early stroke (<30 days), and subcortical lesions.
	Zhang et al.⁶³	22 RCTs(3 cross-over)	Site: contralesional M1Frequency: 1 HzPulses per session: 600–1800Session number: 1–24Intensity: 90–120% rMT	Positive effect on upper limb motor recovery. Short-term efficacy for finger ability, hand strength, and dexterity (in descending order). The long-term effect on finger ability. Enhancing effect of MEPs in the affected hemisphere and suppressing effect in the unaffected hemisphere. Suppressing effect on the rMT of the ispilesional hemisphere and enhancing effect on the rMT of the contralesional hemisphere.
	Graef et al.⁶⁴	8 RCTs(1 cross-over)	Site: unaffected M1, affected M1Frequency: 1 HzPulses per session: 240–1500Session number: 8–22Intensity: 90–120% rMT	No effect for rTMS combined with upper limb training versus upper limb training alone.
	Kang et al.⁶⁵	12 RCTs	Site: unaffected M1, affected M1Frequency: 1–3–10 HzPulses per session: 200–1800Intensity: 90–130% rMT	Positive effect on limb force production for HF-rTMS on ipsilesional M1 and for LF-rTMS on contralesional M1, regardless of the stroke phase (acute, subacute, chronic).
	Hao et al.⁶⁶	19 RCTs	Site: unaffected M1, affected M1Frequency: 0.5–50 HzTreatment duration: 1 day–4 weeks	No effect on the Barthel Index, motor recovery, HDRS, and cognitive function, regardless of stimulation frequencies or disease duration.
	Hsu et al.⁶⁷	18 RCTs	Site: unaffected, affected M1, bilateralFrequency: 1–20 Hz (2 cTBS or iTBS)Pulses per session: 160–2000Treatment duration: 1–10 daysIntensity: 80–130% rMT	Positive effect of on motor function, especially for subcortical strokes. Contralesional LF-rTMS more effective than ipsilesional HF-rTMS. No significant effect on affected side MT. Few adverse events reported.
	Tang⁶⁸	9 (5 RCTs, 4 not specified)	Site: unaffected M1, affected M1.Frequency: 1–20 HzPulses per session: 100–1600Treatment duration: 1–10 sessionsIntensity: 80–100% rMT	Positive effect of rTMS on upper limb motor function. Sub-analysis shows a significant effect for acute stroke and LF-rTMS over the unaffected M1.
Manual dexterity	O’ Brien et al.⁶⁹	11(not clear which studies have been included in the analysis)	Site: contralateral M1, contralateral dorsal premotor cortex.Frequency: 1–10–20 Hz (1 iTBS – cTBS)Pulses per session: 300–200Treatment duration: 1–10 sessionsIntensity: 80–110% rMT	Positive effect of rTMS on hand dexterity in mild-to-moderate chronic stroke.
	Zhang et al.⁷⁰	31 RCTs(8 cross-over)	Site: ipsilesional M1, contralesional M1Frequency: 1–10–20 Hz (4 studies with cTBS or iTBS)Pulses per session: 160–2000Treatment duration: 1–26 sessionsIntensity: 80–130% rMT	Short- and long-term time-dependent improvement. LF-rTMS to the unaffected hemisphere more effective than HF-rTMS to the affected one. Better results in subcortical stroke. Session number-dependent effect (peak after 5 sessions). Few adverse events reported.
	Le at al.⁷¹	8 RCTs (3 cross-over)	Site: unaffected M1, affected M1, unaffected premotor cortexFrequency: 1–25 HzPulses per session: 150–2000Treatment duration: 1–10 daysIntensity: 80–130% rMT	Positive effect on finger motor ability and hand function. No significant changes in neurophysiologic measures (MEPs amplitude and aMT from the paretic side). Few adverse events observed.
Walking and balance	Tung et al.⁷²	8 RCTs (7 parallel, 1 cross-over)	Site: affected M1, unaffected M1, left DLPFC, ipsilesional cerebellar hemisphereFrequency: 1–20 HzPulses per session: 600–1500Treatment duration: 5–40 sessionsIntensity: 90–130% rMT	rTMS significantly improved lower limb function, walking speed, lower limb scores at the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale, and MEPs. No difference regarding the stroke phase and the stimulation frequency.
	Vaz et al.⁷³	3 RCTs	Site: affected hemisphere, unaffected hemisphereFrequency: 1–10 HzPulses per session: 600–2000Treatment duration: 10–30 sessionsIntensity: 90% rMT	rTMS combined with other therapies induced positive effects on gait speed and walking cadence compared with the sham procedure; both excitatory and inhibitory stimulation improved gait speed in acute, subacute, and chronic stroke
	Li et al.⁷⁴	9 (5 RCTs, 4 cross-over)	Site: affected M1, unaffected M1, bilateral M1 leg area, trunk motor spotFrequency: 1–50 HzPulses per session: 600–2000Treatment duration: 1–40 sessionsIntensity: 90% rMT	Significant effect on walking speed for ipsilesional HF-rTMS but not for contralesional or bilateral stimulation; no improvement in balance function and motor function. Significant decrease of MEP amplitude from unaffected hemisphere; no effect on MEP amplitude from the affected hemisphere.
Spasticity	McIntyre et al.⁷⁵	10 (1 RCT, 1 cross-over RCT, 8 pre/post studies)	Site: contralesional or bilateralFrequency: LF-rTMS (1 Hz), except for one using ipsilesional HF-rTMS (10 Hz)Session number: 10–15Pulses per session: 100–2400Intensity: 90% rMT, apart from 1 (30%)	Uncontrolled studies: significant improvements in spasticity at the elbow, wrist, and finger flexors.RCT: no significant effect on the wrist.
	Korzhova et al.⁷⁶	3 (2 RCTs, 1 parallel)	Site: M1 of the unaffected hemisphereFrequency: LF-rTMS (1 Hz)	No difference between real versus sham stimulation.
	Graef et al.⁶⁴	2 RCTs (1 cross-over)	Site: M1 of the unaffected hemisphereFrequency: LF-rTMS (1 Hz)Pulses per session: 240–1500Session number: 10–14Intensity: 90% rMT	No effect for rTMS combined with upper limb training versus upper limb training alone.
Dysphagia	Bath et al.⁷⁷	9 RCTs	Site: affected, unaffected, bilateral sidesFrequency: 1–10 HzPulses per day: 300–1200Treatment duration: 5 days–2 weeks	Positive effect of rTMS on swallowing ability. No effect on case fatality or Penetration Aspiration Scale.
	Chiang et al.⁷⁸	6 RCTs	Site: affected, unaffected, bilateral sideFrequency: 1, 3, 5 HzPulses per day: 300–1200Treatment duration: 5–10 daysIntensity: 90–130% rMT	Positive effect of rTMS on acute and subacute post-stroke dysphagia. rTMS more effective compared with other neuromodulation techniques. No significant adverse events reported.
	Liao et al. 2017⁷⁹	6 RCTs	Site: affected hemisphere, unaffected hemisphere, bilateralFrequency: 1, 3, 5 HzPulses per day: 300–1200Treatment duration: 1–2 weeksIntensity: 90–130% rMT	Positive effect on the unaffected hemisphere and bilateral stimulation. HF-rTMS more effective than LF-rTMS. Effect lasting for at least four weeks.
	Pisegna et al.⁸⁰	4 RCTs	Site: affected and unaffected hemisphereFrequency: 1, 3, 5 HzPulses per session: 250–1200Treatment duration: 1–10 daysIntensity: 90–120% rMT	Positive effect for stimulation of the unaffected side.
	Momosaki et al.⁸¹	5 RCTs	Site: affected hemisphere, unaffected hemisphere, bilateralFrequency: 1, 3, 5 HzTreatment duration: 5–10 sessions	Positive effect of rTMS on dysphagia measured as improvement at the Dysphagia Outcome Severity Scale and Penetration Aspiration Scale
	Yang et al.⁸²	3 RCTs	Site: affected hemisphere, unaffected hemisphere, bilateralFrequency: 3–5 HzPulses per session: 300–500Treatment duration: 5–10 daysIntensity: 90–130% rMT	Positive effect of rTMS on dysphagia compared with sham stimulation.
Aphasia	Bucur and Papagno⁸³	8 (7 RCTs, 1 randomized partialcross-over)	Site: unaffected hemisphere; both sidesFrequency: 1–20 HzPulses per session: 600–1800Treatment duration: 10–15 sessions.Intensity: 80–110% rMT	Positive effect of rTMS on naming for both subacute and chronic stroke; the effect maintained over time.
	Shah-Basak et al.⁸⁴	8 (4 between subject, 3 within subject, 1 cross-over)	Site: right PTr, left PTr, right POp, left POp, right IFG, left IFGFrequency: 1, 6, 20 Hz (1 iTBS; 1 HF-rTMS followed by LF-rTMS)Treatment duration: 10–15 daysIntensity: 90–110% rMT	Positive effect on aphasia in subacute and chronic stroke. Subgroup analysis for trial design: statistically significant effect for between and within-subjects designs, no significant effect for cross-over trial.
	Otal et al.⁸⁵	6 RCTs	Site: right IFGFrequency: 1 HzTreatment duration: 10–15 daysIntensity: 90% rMT	Positive effect on aphasia for LF-rTMS over the nonaffected hemisphere.
	Li et al.⁸⁶	4 RCTs	Site: right PTrFrequency: 1 HzTreatment duration: 10–15 daysIntensity: 90% rMT	Positive effect of LF-rTMS on naming but not on repetition and comprehension. No adverse effects reported.
	Ren et al.⁸⁷	7 RCTs	Site: right PTrFrequency: 1 HzTreatment duration: 10–15 daysIntensity: 90% rMT	Positive effect on severity of aphasia, naming, repetition, writing, and comprehension. No adverse effects reported.
Unilateral neglect	Kashiwagi et al.⁸⁸	3 RCTs	Site: Parietal cortex area 3 and 4Frequency: 1–10 Hz.Pulses per session: 656–1200Treatment duration: 10–28 sessionsIntensity: 80–90% rMT	Positive effect compared with sham on overall USN measured with different scales, more evident at 1 Hz but also present at 10 Hz.
	Fan et al.⁸⁹	6 RCTs	Site: Parietal cortex area 3, 4, and 5Frequency: 0.5, 1, 10 HzPulses per session: 656–1200Treatment duration: 10–28 sessionsIntensity: 80–90% rMT	Rapid and long-lasting improvement for both LF- and HF-rTMS applied on ipsilesional or contralesional site. More pronounced effect for ipsilesional stimulation and for HF-rTMS. No serious adverse events reported.
	Salazar et al.⁹⁰	6 RCTs	Site: Parietal cortex area 3, 4, and 5Frequency: 0.5, 1, 10 HzPulses per session: 656–1200Treatment duration: 10–28 sessionsIntensity: 80–90% rMT	Positive effect of both LF- and HF-rTMS.
Post-stroke depression and vascular depression	Liu et al.⁹¹	17 RCTs	Site: left DLPFCFrequency: 10 HzTreatment duration: 2–12 weeksIntensity: 60–110% rMT	Positive effect of HF-rTMS on depression measured by the HDRS; significant response and remission rates; positive effect on ADL; positive effect on NIHSS. Significant incidence of headache in the treatment group reported.
	Shen et al.⁹²	22 RCTs	Site: right DLPFC, left DLPFC, bilateral DLPFC, bilateral prefrontal cortex, M1, left temporal-parietalFrequency: 0.2–15 HzSequence duration: 4–30 sNumber of sequences: 20–30Pulses per session: 1000–1960Session number: 2–280Intensity: 60–110% rMT	Primary outcome: significant decrease in HDRS. Secondary outcomes: significant effect on clinical response rate. No effect on remission; positive effect on NIHSS and ADL. No clear relationship with the stimulation site and frequency, disease duration, conventional treatment, type of intervention used as control, and total number of sessions.
	Hao et al.⁶⁶	2 RCTs(subanalysis)	Site: bilateral frontal lobes, bilateral prefrontal lobesFrequency: 0.5 Hz.Treatment duration: 1–4 weeks	No effect on HDRS score.
Cognitive function	Hao et al.⁶⁶	2 RCTs(subanalysis)	Site: unaffected M1, bilateral frontal lobesFrequency: 0.5–1 Hz.Treatment duration: 2–4 weeksIntensity: 60–100% rMT	No positive effect on cognitive function.
Central post-stroke pain	Leung et al.⁹³	5 RCTs (1 parallel, 4 cross-over)	Site: M1Frequency: HF-rTMS (range 5–20 Hz)Session number: 1–5Pulses per session: 500–2000	Significant analgesic effect of rTMS compared with sham. Greater effect after multiple sessions of stimulation, with a frequency ranging from >1 to ⩽10 Hz.

ADL, activities of daily living; aMT, active motor threshold; cTBS, continuous theta burst stimulation; DLPFC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; HDRS, Hamilton depression rating scale; HF-rTMS, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus; iTBS, intermittent theta burst stimulation; LF-rTMS, low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; M1, primary motor cortex; MEPs, motor evoked potentials; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health stroke scale; POp, pars opercularis; PTr, pars triangularis; RCTs, randomized controlled trials; rMT, resting motor threshold; rTMS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; TBS, theta burst stimulation.

Results

A total of 139 results were originally found. Of these, 32 peer reviewed publications were selected according to the above-mentioned inclusion and exclusion criteria (Figure 1). The publication year ranges from 2009 to 2019.

In detail, the results included the following: seven studies for motor function,^62–68 three for manual dexterity,^69–71 three for walking and balance,^72–74 three for spasticity,^64,75,76 six for dysphagia,^77–82 five for aphasia,^83–87 three for unilateral neglect,^88–90 three for post-stroke depression and vascular depression,^66,91,92 one for cognitive function,⁶⁶ and one for CPSP.⁹³ The study by Graef and colleagues⁶⁴ included data on both motor function and spasticity and, therefore, the results were independently considered for both categories. Given that the meta-analyses specifically addressing the treatment of cognitive function were not found, data were extracted from a subanalysis of the study by Hao and coworkers.⁶⁶ The same study also included a subanalysis on post-stroke depression.⁶⁶

Motor function

Overall, Tang found a positive effect of rTMS for upper limb motor function, and in particular for LF-rTMS over the unaffected M1 area in acute stroke patients.⁶⁸ Hsu and colleagues found an overall positive effect of rTMS on motor function, with more pronounced results in patients with subcortical lesions.⁶⁷

Interestingly, LF-rTMS applied over the unaffected hemisphere appears to be more beneficial than HF-rTMS over the affected hemisphere.⁶⁷ A meta-analysis focusing on LF-rTMS applied over the contralesional hemisphere also found a positive short- and long-term effects on upper limb motor recovery.⁶³ Nevertheless, Kang and colleagues investigated the effect of rTMS on paretic limb strength during the acute, subacute, and chronic phases of the stroke. Their results show a positive effect in all stroke phases, either for HF-rTMS applied over the ipsilesional M1 or for LF-rTMS over the contralesional hemisphere.⁶⁵ Recently, Xiang and colleagues reported a positive effect of rTMS (in particular, by using 1 Hz stimulation) on limb motor recovery and activities of daily living (ADL). This effect was more evident for acute and subcortical strokes, as well as after seven sessions of stimulation, whereas it decreased with more prolonged treatments.⁶²

Finally, it is worth mentioning that some meta-analyses failed to prove a significant impact of rTMS in stroke recovery. Graef and colleagues did not observe substantial differences when rTMS was combined with upper limb training versus upper limb training alone.⁶⁴ Hao and colleagues found no effect of rTMS on the Barthel index score, motor function, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), and cognitive status, regardless of different frequencies of stimulation or stroke duration.⁶⁶

Overall, there is currently conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of rTMS in motor recovery. LF-rTMS applied over the unaffected hemisphere seems to be the most promising protocol, although further studies are required.

Manual dexterity

Le and colleagues found a positive effect of rTMS on finger motor ability and hand function.⁷¹ A meta-analysis of studies using LF-rTMS, HF-rTMS, and TBS for the recovery of the upper limb found a significant short- and long-term improvement in the outcome measures of motor function. Interestingly, the authors reported the time-dependent effectiveness of rTMS, with a descending order from acute to subacute until the chronic phase of a stroke. Finally, they also suggested a number-dependent effect of rTMS sessions on the manual dexterity recovery, with the most beneficial effect obtained after five sessions.

Regarding the stroke location, rTMS seems to be more effective in those patients with subcortical lesions with respect to other cerebral sites.⁷⁰ On the other hand, a more recent meta-analysis, focusing exclusively on studies considering manual dexterity as a specific outcome measure after rTMS, shows a significant effect in improving hand dexterity in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic stroke.⁶⁹

To summarize, the evidence available suggests a positive effect of rTMS in manual dexterity recovery, but the optimal timing of administration remains uncertain.

Walking and balance

A recent meta-analysis including nine rTMS studies (seven HF-rTMS and two LF-rTMS) showed a significant treatment effect on walking speed for ipsilesional HF-rTMS but not for contralesional or bilateral stimulation. In addition, no improvement in balance or motor function was observed.⁷⁴ Similarly, a further meta-analysis showed a positive effect of rTMS combined with other rehabilitation therapies on gait speed and walking cadence in patients with acute, subacute, and chronic stroke.⁷³ Conversely, Tung and colleagues found a positive effect of rTMS on lower limb motor function, regardless of the stimulation frequency or stroke phase.⁷²

To date, studies specifically addressing the walking and balance recovery are too limited to provide a definitive conclusion, although the effects reported on walking speed are encouraging.

Spasticity

McIntyre and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of rTMS in improving post-stroke spasticity by taking into consideration the modified Ashworth scale as the main outcome measure.⁷⁵ All of the studies included used LF-rTMS (1 Hz) to inhibit the contralesional hemisphere,⁷⁵ apart from one, that used bihemispheric stimulation by combining 1 Hz and 10 Hz.⁹⁴ Among the 10 uncontrolled studies considered in the meta-analysis, a significant improvement of spasticity at the elbow, wrist, and finger flexors were found. However, the two only RCTs did not show a significant effect for the wrist.⁷⁵

The same two RCTs^31,95 were previously included in a meta-analysis by Graef and colleagues, who did not conclude there was any positive effect on spasticity after rTMS combined with upper limb training versus upper limb training alone.⁶⁴ Finally, in the meta-analysis of three studies by Korzhova and colleagues, no significant difference between LF-rTMS versus sham stimulation over M1 of the unaffected hemisphere was detected.⁷⁶

Based on the limited available data, there is no current evidence to support the role of rTMS in the treatment of spasticity.

Dysphagia

Two meta-analyses found an overall positive effect⁸² and a positive effect for the stimulation of the unaffected side,⁸⁰ respectively. Momosaki and colleagues observed a positive effect of rTMS on the dysphagia severity rating scale and the penetration aspiration scale.⁸¹ Bath and colleagues found an improvement of swallowing but no effect on case fatality or penetration aspiration scale.⁷⁷

Another recent meta-analysis included six RCTs.⁴⁵ The result showed a significant improvement in dysphagia, although HF-rTMS seems to be more effective than LF-rTMS. Regarding the stimulation site, an effect for bilateral or contralesional stimulation was found, but not for ipsilesional stimulation. The therapeutic effect lasts for at least 4 weeks after the procedure.⁷⁹ Finally, rTMS seems to be the most effective, among the other neuromodulation techniques (transcranial direct current stimulation, surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and pharyngeal electrical stimulation), for the treatment of acute and subacute post-stroke dysphagia.⁷⁸

In brief, rTMS seems to be a promising neuromodulation technique for the treatment of post-stroke dysphagia, although the optimal stimulation setting needs to be defined.

Aphasia

A recent meta-analysis including eight studies (one of which used TBS and another one a combination of HF-rTMS and LF-rTMS) found a pooled positive effect on aphasia after treatment in both subacute and chronic stroke patients.⁸⁴ The efficacy of rTMS on naming in subacute and chronic patients is also supported by Bucur and Papagno, who confirmed that the positive effect was maintained over time.⁸³ In previous work, a positive effect on the accuracy of naming was observed after LF-rTMS over the right IFG.⁸⁵ Li and colleagues found a positive effect of LF-rTMS on naming but not on repetition and comprehension,⁸⁶ whereas Ren and colleagues showed an effect on severity of impairment, as well as in naming, repetition, writing, and comprehension.⁸⁷

In conclusion, the evidence seems to support the role of LF-rTMS over the unaffected side in the recovery of post-stroke aphasia, with more evident beneficial effects on naming.

Unilateral neglect

A recent meta-analysis including six rTMS studies showed an improvement of unilateral neglect outcome measures, with an immediate and long-lasting effect. Both LF-rTMS and HF-rTMS exerted significant results, either applied on the ipsilesional or the contralesional site, although the effect was more pronounced for ipsilesional stimulation and for HF-rTMS.⁸⁹ Similar results after both excitatory and inhibitory stimulation were found by another meta-analysis that considered the same studies.⁹⁰ According to the most recent meta-analysis on the same topic, the benefits of rTMS seem to be particularly evident when 1 Hz frequency of stimulation is used.⁸⁸

Although there are promising results, the efficacy of rTMS in the treatment of neglect remains controversial, particularly in terms of the best stimulation parameters to be used.

Post-stroke depression and vascular depression

In their meta-analysis including two RCTs, Hao and colleagues found no effect on the HDRS score.⁶⁶ In contrast, a large meta-analysis of 22 RCTs found a significant clinical response after rTMS, as indexed by a significant reduction of HDRS score. However, a clear relationship with the stimulation site and frequency, as well as with the disease duration, the conventional treatment, the type of intervention used as a control, and the total number of sessions, was not found.⁹² Regarding the stimulation frequency, the efficacy of 10 Hz stimulation over the left DLPFC was supported by a recent meta-analysis including only HF-rTMS studies.⁹¹

In short, the evidence seems to support the efficacy of rTMS (particularly HF-rTMS) over the left DLPFC for post-stroke depression. The widely proved efficacy of rTMS for the treatment of major depression disorder encourages further trials.

Cognitive function

In their meta-analysis including two RCTs,^96,97 Hao and colleagues found no significant effect on global cognitive functioning indexed by the Mini Mental State Examination score.⁶⁶ Therefore, data regarding the efficacy of rTMS on cognitive functions is currently lacking.

CPSP

A meta-analysis including five HF-rTMS studies found an analgesic effect in terms of a significant decrease of the score at the pain visual analog scale compared with the sham procedure. The effect was greater with multiple stimulation sessions and within a frequency range of 1 and 10 Hz.⁹³

To date, given the limited number of low-quality studies available, no recommendation can be made regarding the role of rTMS for post-stroke pain treatment.

Discussion

General considerations

The rationale for using rTMS in stroke recovery is based on the neuroplastic effects that it exerts on altered electrophysiological mechanisms including reduced intracortical inhibition and increased transcallosal inhibition of the healthy hemisphere over the damaged side.⁹⁸ Therefore, the therapeutic approaches with rTMS, in accordance with the interhemispheric competition model, are targeted at the normalization of the imbalance between the affected and the unaffected hemispheres.^3,99,100 This can be reached either by delivering HF-rTMS on the ipsilesional hemisphere (to upregulate the level of cortical excitability), or by LF-rTMS to the contralesional hemisphere (thus, downregulating the effect that it exerts on the ipsilesional cortex).⁹⁸

In this context, the selection of the cortical targets is based on the pathophysiological mechanisms that are known to be involved. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have demonstrated the role of both ipsilesional and contralesional M1 areas after a stroke, suggesting a reduction of functional connectivity between the areas related to the severity of motor impairment. On the other hand, stronger functional connectivity between M1 and other brain areas is associated with better motor recovery.^101,102 Notably, although conventional fMRI is limited in providing information on cortical locations, which are active during motor movements, sensory stimuli, or cognitive tasks, resting-state fMRI is a recently evolving method from which functional connectivity between distant brain regions is extracted based on low-frequency fluctuations.¹⁰¹ In particular, Grefkes and colleagues used the dynamic causal modeling, which is a novel approach to capture the intrinsic and task-dependent influences that a particular area exerts over the activity of another area, known as ‘effective connectivity’.¹⁰² Based on these assumptions, M1 was confirmed to be the most common stimulation site when aiming to treat motor impairment and spasticity.

The same principle applies to dysphagia, although deglutition is physiologically mediated by bilateral innervation, with a prevalence by the dominant hemisphere. In dysphagia patients, the increasing contralesional activity might help recovery.^33,80 Nevertheless, hemispheric dominance for swallowing can vary among individuals, it is not necessarily the same for language.

Similarly, in patients with aphasia, fMRI demonstrated hyperactivity of the homologous of the Broca’s area in the right hemisphere. This activity was associated with poor recovery,^103,104 thus providing the rationale for an rTMS-mediated suppression of the right hemisphere activity.¹⁰⁵

Hemispatial neglect is typically attributed to a lesion of the right hemisphere, especially involving the parietal cortex. In normal patients, each hemisphere is responsible for the attention toward the contralateral space, a mechanism normally balanced by reciprocal interhemispheric inhibition. Following a stroke, the impaired activity of the right hemisphere favors the disinhibition of the contralateral side. Therefore, the increased activity of the left hemisphere shifts the attention to the right space of the patient, thus further increasing the inhibition over the affected side.¹⁰⁶ Accordingly, patients with neglect show increased cortical excitability of the left parietal regions.¹⁰⁷ In this scenario, inhibitory or excitatory rTMS, applied over the left or right parietal cortex respectively, can modulate the excitability of the regions involved in post-stroke neglect.^89,106

In depressed patients, many studies pointed out a hypometabolism/hypoexcitability of the left frontal region and a hypermetabolism/hyperexcitability of the right frontal region.^108,109 The DLPFC is easy to access with rTMS, and its crucial involvement in mood/affect regulation and executive functions makes it an ideal target for neuromodulation interventions.^10,110

Finally, the rationale for the application of rTMS in the treatment of chronic pain is based on the efficacy of the epidural stimulation of the motor cortex in treating drug-resistant neuropathic pain.¹¹¹ Repetitive TMS on M1 is capable of modulating pain perception, as demonstrated by experimental models of pain.¹¹² Although the exact mechanisms are not known, an fMRI study in CPSP patients showed that rTMS can influence the activity of the secondary somatosensory cortex, insula, prefrontal cortex, and putamen, suggesting a more widespread modulation of a complex pain network.¹¹³

Proposed pathomechanisms

Regardless of the clinical manifestation of the specific neuroanatomical region involved, the human brain typically shows a wide spectrum of innate capacities to react as a dynamic system, in both physiological and pathological conditions, with the final goal to plastically modulate the characteristics of both single cells and neural circuits.¹¹⁴ These phenomena are recognized under the umbrella term of ‘neuroplasticity’, defined as the ability of the brain to reorganize itself, with a long-lasting remodeling of neural communication.¹¹⁵ The recovery of post-stroke motor deficit probably requires long and complex motor learning processes,¹¹⁶ which are mediated at a molecular level by mechanisms of LTP and LTD.¹¹⁷ These basically consist in long-lasting modifications of the synaptic activity, mainly mediated by α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) and NMDA receptors and by GABAergic transmission.

In this context, rTMS is able to reliably mimic the experimental paradigms inducing LTD and LTP phenomena, thus producing changes in MEPs amplitude that outlast the stimulation application.¹¹⁸ In particular, LF-rTMS inhibits cortical excitability,¹¹⁹ whereas HF-rTMS produces the opposite effect.¹²⁰ The NMDA-dependency of the long-lasting effects of rTMS is suggested by some neuropharmacological studies: memantine, a well-known NMDA antagonist, blocks the effects of TBS.¹²¹

However, rTMS exerts more diffuse effects, including the induction of specific structural changes within the cortex and the modification of functional connections between different and remote areas of the brain, eventually modulating network oscillations.^15,118 Furthermore, rTMS can trigger the release of different neuromodulators (such as acetylcholine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin),^122,123 promote the induction of neurotrophic factors,^124–126 and modulate the expression of genes such as c-Fos.^127,128 Of particular interest, a 10 Hz stimulation of the left DLPFC seems to modulate dopamine release, an effect that is not observed during stimulation of the right DLPFC.¹²⁹ It is important to note that susceptibility to the neuroplasticity-related modification induced by rTMS might be genetically encoded, thus making the response to treatment customized and possibly predictable.^130–132

Finally, the modulation of neural activity induced by rTMS might also result from dynamic changes of the blood flow through specific cerebral regions, including those implicated in cognition and mood regulation.¹³³

Safety and controversies

Overall, based on the data reviewed, rTMS is shown to be safe, painless, and generally well-tolerated, except for a few patients experiencing mild side effects, such as transient headache and anxiety. Nonetheless, before undergoing any rTMS procedure, candidate patients should always be screened according to the safety guidelines¹³⁴ to rule out possible contraindications (e.g. history of seizures, head trauma, syncope, pacemaker, and medical implants or devices, pregnancy). The risk/benefit ratio of the procedure should be carefully evaluated for each patient.

Regarding efficacy, with the exception of spasticity (in which the evidence of benefit is not conclusive yet) and cognitive impairment (for which data are limited), the current literature seems to agree on a positive effect of rTMS for all the other clinical applications of stroke. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal protocols to follow, in terms of patient characteristic and stimulation settings, as briefly summarized in the following and reported in Table 1.

Stroke location

Zhang,⁷⁰ Hsu⁶⁷ and Xiang⁶² reported a more pronounced effect of rTMS on motor function recovery for subcortical stroke. However, it is still unclear whether rTMS should be set for the specific stroke site or not.

Stroke phase

Shah-Basak⁸⁴ and Bucur⁸³ reported a positive effect of rTMS on aphasia in subacute and chronic stroke, whereas O’Brien found a positive effect on fine motor function in chronic stroke only.⁶⁹ According to Zhang, the effectiveness of rTMS on manual dexterity recovery follows a descending order from acute to subacute and chronic phase of stroke.⁷⁰ On the other hand, Kang described a positive effect on motor function in acute, subacute, and chronic stroke,⁶⁵ whereas Tang⁶⁸ and Xiang⁶² described more pronounced effects for acute stroke compared with chronic stroke, whereas Hao found no effect regardless of the stroke phase.⁶⁶ Vaz reported efficacy in walking recovery in all stroke patients.⁷³ Still, the optimal timing of intervention remains controversial.

Stroke severity

O’Brien described an effect on fine motor function in mild-to-moderate stroke,⁶⁹ although data on the correlation between stroke severity and rTMS efficacy are lacking.

Stimulation site

As expected, M1 is the most common site for motor recovery, CPSP, and spasticity, whereas the cortical area representing the muscles involved in deglutition is targeted in post-stroke dysphagia. The DLPFC is the most common target for depression, while the stimulation areas proposed for neglect are parietal cortex areas three, four, and five. In post-stroke aphasia, rTMS is targeted to the pars triangularis, the pars opercularis, and the IFG. The most studied paradigms usually consist of ipsilesional HF-rTMS or contralesional LF-rTMS, although some authors have proposed a combined approach that uses bilateral stimulation. A contralesional HF-rTMS has been also tested in dysphagic patients.⁷⁹

Stimulation frequency

Leung found a positive effect of HF-rTMS in CPSP, particularly in the frequency range > 1 Hz and ⩽ 10 Hz.⁹³ HF-rTMS over the unaffected side seems to be more effective than LF-rTMS for dysphagia.⁷⁹ Both HF-rTMS and LF-rTMS seems to be effective in patients with unilateral neglect.^88–90 The most used protocol for aphasic patients is LF-rTMS at 1 Hz over the unaffected side. Ipsilesional HF-rTMS appears to be the more effective for gait recovery,⁷⁴ while LF-rTMS over the unaffected side seems to be more beneficial than HF-rTMS over the affected side for gross motor function recovery. HF-rTMS seems to be the most effective protocol for post-stroke depression. Overall, this bulk of heterogeneity does not allow us to draw a definitive conclusion on the ideal stimulation frequency.

Stimulation intensity

As for the stimulation frequency, there is great variability among the studies for the intensity of stimulation to be used, with values oscillating from below to well above the patient’s rMT. Suprathreshold upper intensities and frequencies are limited according to the safety guidelines.¹³⁴ Therefore, the most appropriate stimulation intensity is still unclear.

Coil type

The type of coil been used in the studies analyzed was not always clearly stated. Moreover, when reported, significant heterogeneity of coil types was noted. These issues make the comparison of the obtained results rather challenging. To date, therefore, a clear recommendation regarding the type of coil to be used cannot be reached.

Stimulation length

Leng found a greater effect of rTMS on CPSP with repeated stimulations.⁹³ Zhang found a number of dependent effects of rTMS sessions on motor function, with a peak of efficacy after five sessions.⁷⁰ Similarly, Xiang describes the best effects on motor function after seven sessions.⁶² However, the number of stimulation sessions and the total length of treatment significantly vary among the studies and, to date, there is no conclusive statement about this feature.

Long-term efficacy

Liao observed that the effect of rTMS on dysphagia persisted for at least 4 weeks.⁷⁹ A long-lasting positive effect on unilateral neglect was also found by Fan.⁸⁹ Zhang described a long-term improvement in motor function.⁷⁰ The effects of stimulation seem to be long-lasting for aphasia.⁸³ Nonetheless, more data is needed to firmly establish the long-term effects of rTMS and to determine the best stimulation parameters to achieve consistent results.

Outcome measures

There is a large heterogeneity of the outcome measures in the studies considered, making the different interventions employed and the expected results difficult to compare. As known, an objective measure of the effectiveness of an intervention is crucial to translate the research results into clinical practice. Therefore, the outcome measures should be selected according to the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) in order to ensure comparability, reliability, and validity.¹³⁵

Concomitant treatment

The difference between outcomes from TMS combined with conventional therapy versus TMS alone has to be addressed. Indeed, many of the studies reviewed do not report specific results on this aspect, and others do not separately consider the effect of the different therapeutic interventions concomitantly performed.

Strengths and limitations

The strength of this review is that it comprehensively summarizes the evidence from a large number of meta-analyses covering the impact of rTMS on the most common consequences of stroke. The main criticism is of the review is that data were extracted from meta-analyses rather than individual studies, although the meta-analyses provide the highest level of evidence. Another limitation is that, in addition to the conventional HF-rTMS and LF-rTMS, other protocols of repetitive stimulation can be set, such as TBS or the quadripulse stimulation, although this goes beyond the main goal of the present review. When a meta-analysis included both conventional rTMS and TBS, the results on rTMS were in most cases independently extracted, although in some cases data from both techniques were pooled. In these circumstances,^{62,67,69,70,84} the meta-analyses were eventually included given that TBS studies represented only a minority of the total results (Table 1). Finally, although the research methodology was systematic, this article cannot be considered as a systematic review because it provides a description of the studies but not a detailed evaluation of the quality of the studies themselves.

Conclusions and future perspectives

In combination, the evidence from the literature reviewed allows us to state that rTMS is a feasible nonpharmacological tool to assist the neurorehabilitation of different motor and nonmotor clinical manifestations of stroke. Integrated with other conventional rehabilitative modalities, rTMS might synergistically act by further enhancing the clinical recovery and the prognostic perspective of stroke survivors.

However, it is not possible to recommend a particular protocol at present. The significant heterogeneity of the studies currently available, especially in terms of the protocol to be set and outcome measures that have to be used, makes it hard to compare the different interventions employed and the expected results. This leads to a lack of consensus on the best clinical and technical settings to be adopted in order to achieve optimal long-lasting results and to expand the use of rTMS into a large-scale application.

To overcome the previously mentioned limitations, future research should preliminarily evaluate the most promising protocols before going on to multicenter studies with large cohorts of patients in order to achieve a definitive translation into daily clinical practice and a reliable group stratification.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest statement

WP is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Precisis AG, entirely dedicated to epilepsy. FF, GL, AAG, GP, RB, and MP declare that there is no conflict of interest.

ORCID iD

Giuseppe Lanza

References

Langhorne

Coupar

Pollock

Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 741–754.

Winstein

Stein

Arena

, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2016; 47: e98–e169.

Di Pino

Pellegrino

Assenza

, et al. Modulation of brain plasticity in stroke: a novel model for neurorehabilitation. Nat Rev Neurol 2014; 10: 597–608.

Clarke

Forster

Improving post-stroke recovery: the role of the multidisciplinary health care team. J Multidiscip Healthc 2015; 8: 433–442.

Alia

Spalletti

Lai

, et al. Neuroplastic changes following brain ischemia and their contribution to stroke recovery: novel approaches in neurorehabilitation. Front Cell Neurosci 2017; 11: 76.

Cantone

Lanza

Vinciguerra

, et al. Age, Height, and Sex on Motor Evoked Potentials: Translational Data From a Large Italian Cohort in a Clinical Environment. Front Hum Neurosci 2019; 13: 185.

Pennisi

Lanza

Giuffrida

, et al.Excitability of the motor cortex in de novo patients with celiac disease. PLoS One 2014; 9: e102790.

Bella

Lanza

Cantone

, et al.Effect of a Gluten-Free Diet on Cortical Excitability in Adults with Celiac Disease. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0129218.

Lanza

Cantone

Aricò

, et al.Clinical and electrophysiological impact of repetitive low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation on the sensory-motor network in patients with restless legs syndrome. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2018; 11: 1756286418759973.

10.

Lefaucheur

André-Obadia

Antal

, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol 2014; 125: 2150–2206.

11.

Rossini

Burke

Chen

, et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. committee. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126: 1071–1107.

12.

Ziemann

Reis

Schwenkreis

, et al. TMS and drugs revisited 2014. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126: 1847–1868.

13.

Kobayashi

Pascual-Leone

Transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurology. Lancet Neurol 2003; 2: 145–156.

14.

Fitzgerald

Fountain

Daskalakis

ZJ.

A comprehensive review of the effects of rTMS on motor cortical excitability and inhibition. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117: 2584–2596.

15.

Hoogendam

Ramakers

GMJ

Di Lazzaro

Physiology of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human brain. Brain Stimul 2010; 3: 95–118.

16.

Takeuchi

Izumi

SI.

Maladaptive plasticity for motor recovery after stroke: mechanisms and approaches. Neural Plast 2012; 2012: 359728.

17.

JS.

Motor function-related maladaptive plasticity in stroke: a review. NeuroRehabilitation 2013; 32: 311–316.

18.

Dionísio

Duarte

Patrício

, et al. The use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018; 27: 1–31.

19.

Higgins

Koski

Xie

Combining rTMS and task-oriented training in the rehabilitation of the arm after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Stroke Res Treat 2013; 2013: 539146.

20.

Blesneag

Slăvoacă

Popa

, et al. Low-frequency rTMS in patients with subacute ischemic stroke: clinical evaluation of short and long-term outcomes and neurophysiological assessment of cortical excitability. J Med Life 2015; 8: 378–387.

21.

Rose

Patten

McGuirk

, et al. Does inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augment functional task practice to improve arm recovery in chronic stroke? Stroke Res Treat 2014; 2014: 305236.

22.

Malcolm

Triggs

Light

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an adjunct to constraint-induced therapy: an exploratory randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil Assoc Acad Physiatr 2007; 86: 707–715.

23.

Seniów

Bilik

Leśniak

, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with physiotherapy in rehabilitation of poststroke hemiparesis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26: 1072–1079.

24.

Harvey

Edwards

Dunning

, et al. Randomized sham-controlled trial of navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for motor recovery in stroke. Stroke 2018; 49: 2138–2146.

25.

Wang

Magasi

Bohannon

, et al. Assessing dexterity function: a comparison of two alternatives for the NIH toolbox. J Hand Ther 2011; 24: 313–321.

26.

van de Port

IGL

Kwakkel

van Wijk

, et al. Susceptibility to deterioration of mobility long-term after stroke: a prospective cohort study. Stroke 2006; 37: 167–171.

27.

Tyson

Hanley

Chillala

, et al. The relationship between balance, disability, and recovery after stroke: predictive validity of the brunel balance assessment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 341–346.

28.

Chieffo

Comi

Leocani

Noninvasive neuromodulation in poststroke gait disorders: rationale, feasibility, and state of the art. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2016; 30: 71–82.

29.

Fleming

Pavlou

Newham

, et al. Non-invasive brain stimulation for the lower limb after stroke: what do we know so far and what should we be doing next? Disabil Rehabil 2017; 39: 714–720.

30.

Thibaut

Chatelle

Ziegler

, et al. Spasticity after stroke: physiology, assessment and treatment. Brain Inj 2013; 27: 1093–1105.

31.

Barros Galvão

Borba

Costa

dos Santos

, et al. Efficacy of coupling repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and physical therapy to reduce upper-limb spasticity in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95: 222–229.

32.

Meng

Wang

Lien

IN.

Dysphagia in patients with brainstem stroke: incidence and outcome. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 79: 170–175.

33.

Doeltgen

Bradnam

Young

, et al. Transcranial non-invasive brain stimulation in swallowing rehabilitation following stroke—a review of the literature. Physiol Behav 2015; 143: 1–9.

34.

Berthier

ML.

Poststroke aphasia: epidemiology, pathophysiology and treatment. Drugs Aging 2005; 22: 163–182.

35.

Heilman

Valenstein

Watson

RT.

Neglect and related disorders. Semin Neurol 2000; 20: 463–470.

36.

Fasotti

van Kessel

Novel insights in the rehabilitation of neglect. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7: 780.

37.

Dionísio

Duarte

Patrício

, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation as an intervention tool to recover from language, swallowing and attentional deficits after stroke: a systematic review. Cerebrovasc Dis 2018; 46: 178–185.

38.

Robinson

Jorge

RE.

Post-stroke depression: a review. Am J Psychiatry 2016; 173: 221–231.

39.

Perera

George

Grammer

, et al. The clinical TMS society consensus review and treatment recommendations for TMS therapy for major depressive disorder. Brain Stimulat 2016; 9: 336–346.

40.

Cantone

Bramanti

Lanza

, et al. Cortical plasticity in depression. ASN Neuro 2017; 9: 1759091417711512.

41.

McIntyre

Thompson

Burhan

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression due to cerebrovascular disease: a systematic review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2016; 25: 2792–2800.

42.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2013.

43.

Krishnan

KRR

. MRI-defined vascular depression. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 5: 497–501.

44.

Coffey

Wilkinson

Weiner

, et al. Quantitative cerebral anatomy in depression. A controlled magnetic resonance imaging study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993; 50: 7–16.

45.

Brunoni

Benseñor

Alves

TF.

Therapeutic interventions for vascular depression: a systematic review. Braz J Psychiatry 2011; 33: 400–409.

46.

Kalaria

Akinyemi

Ihara

Stroke injury, cognitive impairment and vascular dementia. Biochim Biophys Acta 2016; 1862: 915–925.

47.

Lage

Wiles

Shergill

, et al. A systematic review of the effects of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognition. J Neural Transm 2016; 123: 1479–1490.

48.

Guse

Falkai

Wobrock

Cognitive effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review. J Neural Transm 2010; 117: 105–122.

49.

Zhang

Xing

Wang

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation enhances spatial learning and synaptic plasticity via the VEGF and BDNF-NMDAR pathways in a rat model of vascular dementia. Neuroscience 2015; 311: 284–291.

50.

Yang

Liu

Xie

, et al. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on synaptic plasticity and apoptosis in vascular dementia rats. Behav Brain Res 2015; 281: 149–155.

51.

Guo

Lou

Han

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation ameliorates cognitive impairment by enhancing neurogenesis and suppressing apoptosis in the hippocampus in rats with ischemic stroke. Front Physiol 2017; 8: 559.

52.

Zhang

Huo

, et al. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function and cholinergic activity in the rat hippocampus after vascular dementia. Neural Regen Res 2018; 13: 1384–1389.

53.

Kim

Chun

, et al. Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognition and mood in stroke patients: a double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 89: 362–368.

54.

Jorge

Robinson

Tateno

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as treatment of poststroke depression: a preliminary study. Biol Psychiatry 2004; 55: 398–405.

55.

Rektorova

Megova

Bares

, et al. Cognitive functioning after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with cerebrovascular disease without dementia: a pilot study of seven patients. J Neurol Sci 2005; 229–230: 157–161.

56.

Sedlackova

Rektorova

Fanfrdlova

, et al. Neurocognitive effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with cerebrovascular disease without dementia. J Psychophysiol 2008; 22: 14–19.

57.

Bordet

Ihl

Korczyn

, et al. Towards the concept of disease-modifier in post-stroke or vascular cognitive impairment: a consensus report. BMC Med 2017; 15: 107.

58.

Kumar

Kalita

Kumar

, et al. Central poststroke pain: a review of pathophysiology and treatment. Anesth Analg 2009; 108: 1645–1657.

59.

Jönsson

Lindgren

Hallström

, et al. Prevalence and intensity of pain after stroke: a population based study focusing on patients’ perspectives. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006; 77: 590–595.

60.

Chen

Chuang

Huang

ACW

, et al. The antalgic effects of non-invasive physical modalities on central post-stroke pain: a systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci 2016; 28: 1368–1373.

61.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: 264–269.

62.

Xiang

Sun

Tang

, et al. The effect and optimal parameters of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor recovery in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil 2019; 33: 847–864.

63.

Zhang

Xing

Shuai

, et al. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for stroke-induced upper limb motor deficit: a meta-analysis. Neural Plast 2017; 2017: 2758097.

64.

Graef

Dadalt

MLR

Rodrigués

DAM da S

, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with upper-limb training for improving function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Sci 2016; 369: 149–158.

65.

Kang

Summers

Cauraugh

JH.

Non-invasive brain stimulation improves paretic limb force production: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Stimulat 2016; 9: 662–670.

66.

Hao

Wang

Zeng

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013: CD008862.

67.

Hsu

Cheng

Liao

, et al. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor functions in patients with stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2012; 43: 1849–1857.

68.

Tang

IN.

The effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on upper extremity motor function in stroke patients: a meta-analytical review. J Food Drug Anal 2012; 20: 5.

69.

O’Brien

Bertolucci

Torrealba-Acosta

, et al. Non-invasive brain stimulation for fine motor improvement after stroke: a meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol 2018; 25: 1017–1026.

70.

Zhang

Xing

Fan

, et al. Short- and long-term effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on upper limb motor function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31: 1137–1153.

71.

Tao

, et al. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on hand function recovery and excitability of the motor cortex after stroke: a meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 93: 422–430.

72.

Tung

Lai

Liao

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of lower limb motor function in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil 2019; 33: 1102–1112.

73.

Vaz

Salazar

Stein

, et al. Noninvasive brain stimulation combined with other therapies improves gait speed after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Top Stroke Rehabil 2019; 26: 201–213.

74.

Fan

Yang

, et al. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on walking and balance function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 97: 773–781.

75.

McIntyre

Mirkowski

Thompson

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for spasticity poststroke. PM R 2018; 10: 293–302.

76.

Korzhova

Sinitsyn

Chervyakov

, et al. Transcranial and spinal cord magnetic stimulation in treatment of spasticity: a literature review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018; 54: 75–84.

77.

Bath

Lee

Everton

LF.

Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 10: CD000323.

78.

Chiang

Lin

Hsiao

, et al. Comparative efficacy of non-invasive neurostimulation therapies for acute and subacute post-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019; 100: 739–750.e4.

79.

Liao

Xing

Guo

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for dysphagia after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31: 289–298.

80.

Pisegna

Kaneoka

Pearson

, et al. Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on post-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Neurophysiol 2016; 127: 956–968.

81.

Momosaki

Kinoshita

Kakuda

, et al. Noninvasive brain stimulation for dysphagia after acquired brain injury: a systematic review. J Med Invest 2016; 63: 153–158.

82.

Yang

Pyun

Kim

, et al. Effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation in dysphagia subsequent to stroke: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Dysphagia 2015; 30: 383–391.

83.

Bucur

Papagno

Are transcranial brain stimulation effects long-lasting in post-stroke aphasia? A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis on naming performance. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2019; 102: 264–289.

84.

Shah-Basak

Wurzman

Purcell

, et al. Fields or flows? A comparative meta analysis of transcranial magnetic and direct current stimulation to treat post-stroke aphasia. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2016; 34: 537–558.

85.

Otal

Olma

Flöel

, et al. Inhibitory non-invasive brain stimulation to homologous language regions as an adjunct to speech and language therapy in post-stroke aphasia: a meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 9: 236.

86.

Yuan

, et al. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients with aphasia after stoke: a meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med 2015; 47: 675–681.

87.

Ren

Zhang

Xia

, et al. Effect of low-frequency rTMS on aphasia in stroke patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2014; 9: e102557.

88.

Kashiwagi

El Dib

Gomaa

, et al. Noninvasive brain stimulations for unilateral spatial neglect after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. Neural Plast 2018; 2018: 1638763.

89.

Fan

Yang

, et al. Efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation on unilateral neglect after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 97: 261–269.

90.

Salazar

APS

Vaz

Marchese

, et al. Noninvasive brain stimulation improves hemispatial neglect after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 99: 355–366.e1.

91.

Liu

Wang

Liang

, et al. Efficacy and safety of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for poststroke depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019; (In press).

92.

Shen

Liu

Cheng

, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of post-stroke depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Affect Disord 2017; 211: 65–74.

93.

Leung

Donohue

, et al. rTMS for suppressing neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis. J Pain 2009; 10: 1205–1216.

94.

Yamada

Kakuda

Kondo

, et al. Bihemispheric repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with intensive occupational therapy for upper limb hemiparesis after stroke: a preliminary study. Int J Rehabil Res 2013; 36: 323–329.

95.

Etoh

Noma

Ikeda

, et al. Effects of repetitive trascranial magnetic stimulation on repetitive facilitation exercises of the hemiplegic hand in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med 2013; 45: 843–847.

96.

YB.

Living ability and cognitive function ameliorated by low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with post-stroke depression: comparison with drug plus psychological treatment. Chinese J Clin Rehabil 2005; 9: 22–23.

97.

Fregni

Boggio

Valle

, et al. A sham-controlled trial of a 5-day course of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Stroke 2006; 37: 2115–2122.

98.

Hoyer

Celnik

PA.

Understanding and enhancing motor recovery after stroke using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2011; 29: 395–409.

99.

Nowak

Grefkes

Ameli

, et al. Interhemispheric competition after stroke: brain stimulation to enhance recovery of function of the affected hand. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 641–656.

100.

Boddington

Reynolds

JNJ

. Targeting interhemispheric inhibition with neuromodulation to enhance stroke rehabilitation. Brain Stimulat 2017; 10: 214–222.

101.

Park

Chang

Ohn

, et al. Longitudinal changes of resting-state functional connectivity during motor recovery after stroke. Stroke J Cereb Circ 2011; 42: 1357–1362.

102.

Grefkes

Nowak

Eickhoff

, et al. Cortical connectivity after subcortical stroke assessed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol 2008; 63: 236–246.

103.

Saur

Hartwigsen

Neurobiology of language recovery after stroke: lessons from neuroimaging studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: S15–S25.

104.

Crosson

McGregor

Gopinath

, et al. Functional MRI of language in aphasia: a review of the literature and the methodological challenges. Neuropsychol Rev 2007; 17: 157–177.

105.

Shah

Szaflarski

Allendorfer

, et al. Induction of neuroplasticity and recovery in post-stroke aphasia by non-invasive brain stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7: 888.

106.

Mylius

Ayache

Zouari

, et al. Stroke rehabilitation using noninvasive cortical stimulation: hemispatial neglect. Expert Rev Neurother 2012; 12: 983–991.

107.

Koch

Oliveri

Cheeran

, et al. Hyperexcitability of parietal-motor functional connections for the intact left-hemisphere in neglect patients. Brain J Neurol 2008; 131: 3147–3155.

108.

Kennedy

Javanmard

Vaccarino

FJ.

A review of functional neuroimaging in mood disorders: positron emission tomography and depression. Can J Psychiatry Rev Can Psychiatr 1997; 42: 467–475.

109.

Bench

Frackowiak

Dolan

RJ.

Changes in regional cerebral blood flow on recovery from depression. Psychol Med 1995; 25: 247–261.

110.

Turriziani

Smirni

Zappalà

, et al. Enhancing memory performance with rTMS in healthy subjects and individuals with mild cognitive impairment: the role of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Front Hum Neurosci 2012; 6: 62.

111.

Tsubokawa

Katayama

Yamamoto

, et al. Chronic motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of central pain. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1991; 52: 137–139.

112.

Mylius

Borckardt

Lefaucheur

JP.

Noninvasive cortical modulation of experimental pain. Pain 2012; 153: 1350–1363.

113.

Ohn

Chang

Park

, et al. Neural correlates of the antinociceptive effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on central pain after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26: 344–352.

114.

Hara

Brain plasticity and rehabilitation in stroke patients. J Nippon Med Sch 2015; 82: 4–13.

115.

Butler

Wolf

SL.

Putting the brain on the map: use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to assess and induce cortical plasticity of upper-extremity movement. Phys Ther 2007; 87: 719–736.

116.

Krakauer

JW.

Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol 2006; 19: 84–90.

117.

Buonomano

Merzenich

MM.

Cortical plasticity: from synapses to maps. Annu Rev Neurosci 1998; 21: 149–186.

118.

Huerta

Volpe

BT.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation, synaptic plasticity and network oscillations. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil 2009; 6: 7.

119.

Chen

Classen

Gerloff

, et al. Depression of motor cortex excitability by low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology 1997; 48: 1398–1403.

120.

Pascual-Leone

Valls-Solé

Wassermann

, et al. Responses to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain J Neurol 1994; 117: 847–858.

121.

Huang

Chen

Rothwell

, et al. The after-effect of human theta burst stimulation is NMDA receptor dependent. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118: 1028–1032.

122.

Ben-Shachar

Gazawi

Riboyad-Levin

, et al. Chronic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation alters beta-adrenergic and 5-HT2 receptor characteristics in rat brain. Brain Res 1999; 816: 78–83.

123.

Zangen

Hyodo

Transcranial magnetic stimulation induces increases in extracellular levels of dopamine and glutamate in the nucleus accumbens. Neuroreport 2002; 13: 2401–2405.

124.

Zhang

Mei

Liu

, et al. Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on the expression of c-Fos and brain-derived neurotrophic factor of the cerebral cortex in rats with cerebral infarct. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol 2007; 27: 415–418.

125.

Brunoni

Boggio

Fregni

Can the ‘yin and yang’ BDNF hypothesis be used to predict the effects of rTMS treatment in neuropsychiatry?

Med Hypotheses 2008; 71: 279–282.

126.

Chervyakov

Chernyavsky

AYu

Sinitsyn

, et al. Possible mechanisms underlying the therapeutic effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 9: 303.

127.

Aydin-Abidin

Trippe

Funke

, et al. High- and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation differentially activates c-Fos and zif268 protein expression in the rat brain. Exp Brain Res 2008; 188: 249–261.

128.

Ljubisavljevic

Javid

Oommen

, et al. The effects of different repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocols on cortical gene expression in a rat model of cerebral ischemic-reperfusion injury. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0139892.

129.

Cho

Strafella

AP.

rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates dopamine release in the ipsilateral anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal cortex. PLoS One 2009; 4: e6725.

130.

Zanardi

Magri

Rossini

, et al. Role of serotonergic gene polymorphisms on response to transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2007; 17: 651–657.

131.

Cheeran

Talelli

Mori

, et al. A common polymorphism in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) modulates human cortical plasticity and the response to rTMS. J Physiol 2008; 586: 5717–5725.

132.

Fedi

Berkovic

Macdonell

RAL

, et al. Intracortical hyperexcitability in humans with a GABAA receptor mutation. Cereb Cortex 2008; 18: 664–669.

133.

Padberg

George

MS.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the prefrontal cortex in depression. Exp Neurol 2009; 219: 2–13.

134.

Rossi

Hallett

Rossini

, et al. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120: 2008–2039.

135.

Salter

Jutai

Zettler

, et al. Outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation. In: Teasell

(eds) Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation. London: EBRSR, 2013, p.144.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in stroke rehabilitation: review of the current evidence and pitfalls

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

rTMS in stroke rehabilitation: an overview

Study objective

Methods

Search strategy

Search queries and results

Study selection

Data extraction

Results

Motor function

Manual dexterity

Walking and balance

Spasticity

Dysphagia

Aphasia

Unilateral neglect

Post-stroke depression and vascular depression

Cognitive function

CPSP

Discussion

General considerations

Proposed pathomechanisms

Safety and controversies

Stroke location

Stroke phase

Stroke severity

Stimulation site

Stimulation frequency

Stimulation intensity

Coil type

Stimulation length

Long-term efficacy

Outcome measures

Concomitant treatment

Strengths and limitations

Conclusions and future perspectives

Footnotes

Funding

Conflict of interest statement

ORCID iD

References