A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system

an international consensus study

Lucy Chipchase, Siobhan Schabrun, Leonardo Cohen, Paul Hodges, Michael Ridding, John Rothwell, Janet Taylor, Ulf Ziemann

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

91 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the last decade transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been the subject of more than 20,000 original research articles. Despite this popularity, TMS responses are known to be highly variable and this variability can impact on interpretation of research findings. There are no guidelines regarding the factors that should be reported and/or controlled in TMS studies. This study aimed to develop a checklist to be recommended to evaluate the methodology and reporting of studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. A two round international web-based Delphi study was conducted. Panellists rated the importance of a number of subject, methodological and analytical factors to be reported and/or controlled in studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. Twenty-seven items for single pulse studies and 30 items for paired pulse studies were included in the final checklist. Eight items related to subjects (e.g. age, gender), 21 to methodology (e.g. coil type, stimulus intensity) and two to analysis (e.g. size of the unconditioned motor evoked potential). The checklist is recommended for inclusion when submitting manuscripts for publication to ensure transparency of reporting and could also be used to critically appraise previously published work. It is envisaged that factors could be added and deleted from the checklist on the basis of future research. Use of the TMS methodological checklist should improve the quality of data collection and reporting in TMS studies of the motor system.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1698-704
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Neurophysiology
Volume123
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Checklist
Delphi Technique
Motor Evoked Potentials
Manuscripts
Research
Publications
Research Design
Guidelines

Cite this

Chipchase, Lucy ; Schabrun, Siobhan ; Cohen, Leonardo ; Hodges, Paul ; Ridding, Michael ; Rothwell, John ; Taylor, Janet ; Ziemann, Ulf. / A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system : an international consensus study. In: Clinical Neurophysiology. 2012 ; Vol. 123, No. 9. pp. 1698-704.
@article{52b94bee235642d086d6be8078dd4088,
title = "A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system: an international consensus study",
abstract = "In the last decade transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been the subject of more than 20,000 original research articles. Despite this popularity, TMS responses are known to be highly variable and this variability can impact on interpretation of research findings. There are no guidelines regarding the factors that should be reported and/or controlled in TMS studies. This study aimed to develop a checklist to be recommended to evaluate the methodology and reporting of studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. A two round international web-based Delphi study was conducted. Panellists rated the importance of a number of subject, methodological and analytical factors to be reported and/or controlled in studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. Twenty-seven items for single pulse studies and 30 items for paired pulse studies were included in the final checklist. Eight items related to subjects (e.g. age, gender), 21 to methodology (e.g. coil type, stimulus intensity) and two to analysis (e.g. size of the unconditioned motor evoked potential). The checklist is recommended for inclusion when submitting manuscripts for publication to ensure transparency of reporting and could also be used to critically appraise previously published work. It is envisaged that factors could be added and deleted from the checklist on the basis of future research. Use of the TMS methodological checklist should improve the quality of data collection and reporting in TMS studies of the motor system.",
keywords = "Animals, Checklist, Consensus, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Humans, Movement, Reproducibility of Results, Surveys and Questionnaires, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Journal Article, Review",
author = "Lucy Chipchase and Siobhan Schabrun and Leonardo Cohen and Paul Hodges and Michael Ridding and John Rothwell and Janet Taylor and Ulf Ziemann",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2012 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. All rights reserved.",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinph.2012.05.003",
language = "English",
volume = "123",
pages = "1698--704",
journal = "Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology - Electromyography and Motor Control",
issn = "1388-2457",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "9",

}

A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system : an international consensus study. / Chipchase, Lucy; Schabrun, Siobhan; Cohen, Leonardo; Hodges, Paul; Ridding, Michael; Rothwell, John; Taylor, Janet; Ziemann, Ulf.

In: Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 123, No. 9, 09.2012, p. 1698-704.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system

T2 - an international consensus study

AU - Chipchase, Lucy

AU - Schabrun, Siobhan

AU - Cohen, Leonardo

AU - Hodges, Paul

AU - Ridding, Michael

AU - Rothwell, John

AU - Taylor, Janet

AU - Ziemann, Ulf

N1 - Copyright © 2012 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. All rights reserved.

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - In the last decade transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been the subject of more than 20,000 original research articles. Despite this popularity, TMS responses are known to be highly variable and this variability can impact on interpretation of research findings. There are no guidelines regarding the factors that should be reported and/or controlled in TMS studies. This study aimed to develop a checklist to be recommended to evaluate the methodology and reporting of studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. A two round international web-based Delphi study was conducted. Panellists rated the importance of a number of subject, methodological and analytical factors to be reported and/or controlled in studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. Twenty-seven items for single pulse studies and 30 items for paired pulse studies were included in the final checklist. Eight items related to subjects (e.g. age, gender), 21 to methodology (e.g. coil type, stimulus intensity) and two to analysis (e.g. size of the unconditioned motor evoked potential). The checklist is recommended for inclusion when submitting manuscripts for publication to ensure transparency of reporting and could also be used to critically appraise previously published work. It is envisaged that factors could be added and deleted from the checklist on the basis of future research. Use of the TMS methodological checklist should improve the quality of data collection and reporting in TMS studies of the motor system.

AB - In the last decade transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been the subject of more than 20,000 original research articles. Despite this popularity, TMS responses are known to be highly variable and this variability can impact on interpretation of research findings. There are no guidelines regarding the factors that should be reported and/or controlled in TMS studies. This study aimed to develop a checklist to be recommended to evaluate the methodology and reporting of studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. A two round international web-based Delphi study was conducted. Panellists rated the importance of a number of subject, methodological and analytical factors to be reported and/or controlled in studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. Twenty-seven items for single pulse studies and 30 items for paired pulse studies were included in the final checklist. Eight items related to subjects (e.g. age, gender), 21 to methodology (e.g. coil type, stimulus intensity) and two to analysis (e.g. size of the unconditioned motor evoked potential). The checklist is recommended for inclusion when submitting manuscripts for publication to ensure transparency of reporting and could also be used to critically appraise previously published work. It is envisaged that factors could be added and deleted from the checklist on the basis of future research. Use of the TMS methodological checklist should improve the quality of data collection and reporting in TMS studies of the motor system.

KW - Animals

KW - Checklist

KW - Consensus

KW - Evoked Potentials, Motor

KW - Humans

KW - Movement

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

KW - Journal Article

KW - Review

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.05.003

DO - 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.05.003

M3 - Review article

VL - 123

SP - 1698

EP - 1704

JO - Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology - Electromyography and Motor Control

JF - Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology - Electromyography and Motor Control

SN - 1388-2457

IS - 9

ER -