Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec;98(52):e18561.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018561.

Effectiveness and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on aphasia in cerebrovascular accident patients: Protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations

Effectiveness and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on aphasia in cerebrovascular accident patients: Protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yaling Zheng et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive brain stimulation approach, might be a promising technique in the management of aphasia after cerebrovascular accidents (CVA). This protocol of systematic review (SR) aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of rTMS in patients with aphasia after CVA.

Methods: The following databases will be searched: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Technology Periodical Database (VIP), WanFang Data, and China Biology Medicine (CBM) from inception to August 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness and safety of rTMS for aphasia patients after CVA will be included. Primary outcome will include Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE). Secondary outcomes will include Aphasia Battery of Chinese (ABC), Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT), Aphasia Quotient (AQ), the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB), Standard Language Test of Aphasia (SLTA), Aphasia Severity Rating Scale (ASRS), Concise China Aphasia Test Scale (CCAT), Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT), or other related outcomes. Adverse events such as headache, tinnitus, anxiety, fatigue, or epileptic seizure will be considered as safety measurement. Studies screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis will be conducted with Review Manager 5.3 software and R software 3.6.1.

Results: This study will provide a high-quality synthesis of RCTs on the effectiveness and safety of rTMS as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of aphasia.

Conclusion: The conclusion of this study will help clinicians and patients with aphasia after CVA to make decision.

Ethics and dissemination: No privacy health information will be collected, thus formal ethics approval is not required. The findings of this SR will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

Prospero registration number: CRD42019144587.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Worrall L, Foster A. Does intensity matter in aphasia rehabilitation? Lancet 2017;389:1494–5. - PubMed
    1. Wang J, Li J, Zhang Y, et al. Effects of low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on non-fluent aphasia after stroke. Chin J Rehabil Med 2018;33:1463–4.
    1. Simmons-Mackie N, Worrall L, Murray LL, et al. The top ten: best practice recommendations for aphasia. Aphasiology 2017;31:131–51.
    1. Akabogu J, Nnamani A, Otu MS, et al. Efficacy of cognitive behavior language therapy for aphasia following stroke: implications for language education research. Medicine 2019;98:e15305. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maas MB, Lev MH, Ay H, et al. The prognosis for aphasia in stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2012;21 (5.):350–7. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms