IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0102557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Low-Frequency rTMS on Aphasia in Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Cai-Li Ren
  • Guo-Fu Zhang
  • Nan Xia
  • Chun-Hui Jin
  • Xiu-Hua Zhang
  • Jian-Feng Hao
  • Hong-Bo Guan
  • Hong Tang
  • Jian-An Li
  • De-Liang Cai

Abstract

Background: Small clinical trials have reported that low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) might improve language recovery in patients with aphasia after stroke. However, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses studies have investigated the effect of rTMS on aphasia. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies that explored the effects of low-frequency rTMS on aphasia in stroke patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Journals@Ovid for randomized controlled trials published between January 1965 and October 2013 using the keywords “aphasia OR language disorders OR anomia OR linguistic disorders AND repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation OR rTMS”. We used fixed- and random-effects models to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% CI for the language outcomes. Results: Seven eligible studies involving 160 stroke patients were identified in this meta-analysis. A significant effect size of 1.26 was found for the language outcome severity of impairment (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.71) without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.44). Further analyses demonstrated prominent effects for the naming subtest (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.87), repetition (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.92), writing (SMD = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.22), and comprehension (the Token test: SMD = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.07 to 1.09) without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). The SMD of AAT and BDAE comprehension subtests was 0.32 (95% CI = −0.08 to 0.72) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 32%,P = 0.22). The effect size did not change significantly even when any one trial was eliminated. None of the patients from the 7 included articles reported adverse effects from rTMS. Conclusions: Low-frequency rTMS with a 90% resting motor threshold that targets the triangular part of the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) has a positive effect on language recovery in patients with aphasia following stroke. Further well-designed studies with larger populations are required to ascertain the long-term effects of rTMS in aphasia treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Cai-Li Ren & Guo-Fu Zhang & Nan Xia & Chun-Hui Jin & Xiu-Hua Zhang & Jian-Feng Hao & Hong-Bo Guan & Hong Tang & Jian-An Li & De-Liang Cai, 2014. "Effect of Low-Frequency rTMS on Aphasia in Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-10, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0102557
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102557
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102557&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0102557?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0102557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.