The number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive means by which to assess the structure and function of the central nervous system. Current practices involve the administration of multiple stimuli over target areas of a participant’s scalp. Decreasing the number of stimuli delivered during TMS assessments would improve time efficiency and decrease participant demand. However, doing so may also compromise the within- or between-session reliability of the technique. The aim of this review was therefore to determine the minimum number of TMS stimuli required to reliably measure (i) corticomotor excitability of a target muscle at a single cranial site and (ii) topography of the primary motor cortical representation of a target muscle across multiple cranial sites.MethodsDatabase searches were performed to identify diagnostic reliability studies published before May 2015. Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies employing single-pulse TMS to measure (i) the corticomotor excitability at a single cranial site or (ii) the topographic cortical organisation of a target muscle across a number of cranial sites. Outcome measures included motor evoked potential amplitude, map volume, number of active map sites and location of the map centre of gravity.ResultsOnly studies comparing the reliability of varying numbers of stimuli delivered to a single cranial site were identified. Five was the lowest number of stimuli that could be delivered to produce excellent within-session motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95). Ten stimuli were required to achieve consistent between-session MEP amplitudes among healthy participants (ICC = 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95). However, between-session reliability was influenced by participant characteristics, intersession intervals and target musculature.ConclusionsFurther exploration of the reliability of multi-site TMS mapping is required. Five stimuli produce reliable MEP recordings during single-site TMS investigations involving one session. For single-site analyses involving multiple sessions, ten stimuli are recommended when investigating corticomotor excitability in healthy participants or the upper limb musculature. However, greater numbers of stimuli may be required for clinical populations or assessments involving the lower limb.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015024579

[1]  Risto J. Ilmoniemi,et al.  The Effect of Stimulus Parameters on TMS–EEG Muscle Artifacts , 2013, Brain Stimulation.

[2]  U. Ziemann,et al.  A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: Report of an IFCN committee , 2012, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[3]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[4]  Brian J. Gleberzon,et al.  Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation , 2013, Chiropractic & Manual Therapies.

[5]  Simone Rossi,et al.  TMS in cognitive plasticity and the potential for rehabilitation , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  L. Portney,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .

[7]  Simon C Gandevia,et al.  Reproducible measurement of human motoneuron excitability with magnetic stimulation of the corticospinal tract. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[8]  G. Mead,et al.  Stroke: Physical Fitness, Exercise, and Fatigue , 2012, Stroke research and treatment.

[9]  Sarah H. Lisanby,et al.  Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: Definition, selection, and reporting practices , 2012, Brain Stimulation.

[10]  Shapour Jaberzadeh,et al.  A Higher Number of TMS-Elicited MEP from a Combined Hotspot Improves Intra- and Inter-Session Reliability of the Upper Limb Muscles in Healthy Individuals , 2012, PloS one.

[11]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[12]  J. Rothwell,et al.  A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system: An international consensus study , 2012, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[13]  C. Stinear,et al.  Prediction of recovery of motor function after stroke , 2010, The Lancet Neurology.

[14]  G. Lewis,et al.  Reliability of lower limb motor evoked potentials in stroke and healthy populations: How many responses are needed? , 2014, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[15]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[16]  A. Barker,et al.  NON-INVASIVE MAGNETIC STIMULATION OF HUMAN MOTOR CORTEX , 1985, The Lancet.

[17]  Z. Fedorowicz,et al.  Quality assessment of systematic reviews of health care interventions using AMSTAR , 2011, Indian pediatrics.

[18]  S. Riek,et al.  Reliability of the input–output properties of the cortico-spinal pathway obtained from transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation , 2001, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[19]  B. Vicenzino,et al.  Novel adaptations in motor cortical maps: the relation to persistent elbow pain. , 2015, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[20]  J. Zentner,et al.  The Effects of Stimulation Pattern and Sevoflurane Concentration on Intraoperative Motor-Evoked Potentials , 2006, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[21]  P. Delwaide,et al.  Can motor recovery in stroke patients be predicted by early transcranial magnetic stimulation? , 1996, Stroke.

[22]  Mark van de Ruit,et al.  TMS Brain Mapping in Less Than Two Minutes , 2015, Brain Stimulation.

[23]  M. Ridding,et al.  Test–retest reliability of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) at the submental muscle group during volitional swallowing , 2009, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[24]  Gary Kamen,et al.  Reliability of motor-evoked potentials during resting and active contraction conditions. , 2004, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[25]  D. Gupta,et al.  Application to Practice , 2014 .

[26]  A. Bialocerkowski,et al.  How to read and critically appraise a reliability article , 2010 .

[27]  Ryan T. Crews,et al.  Reliability of motor-evoked potentials in the ADM muscle of older adults , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[28]  M. Malcolm,et al.  Reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation for mapping swallowing musculature in the human motor cortex , 2008, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[29]  S. Schabrun,et al.  Determining the number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[30]  L. Irwig,et al.  The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL) , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[31]  G Schlaug,et al.  Multimodal output mapping of human central motor representation on different spatial scales , 1998, The Journal of physiology.

[32]  L. Irwig,et al.  The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.