NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Introduction: Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has emerged as a promising neuromodulatory intervention for addressing motor, cognitive, and socio-affective deficits across a range of clinical populations. Materials and Methods: This systematic review aimed to synthesize recent evidence (2015-2025) on the efficacy, safety, and methodological characteristics of multi-session cerebellar TMS protocols used in rehabilitation settings. Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies applying multi-session cerebellar TMS in clinical populations for motor, cognitive, or affective rehabilitation. A total of 1750 records were screened, and 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction included sample characteristics, study design, TMS protocol, targeted symptoms, outcomes, and risk of bias. Results: The results show that repeated sessions of cerebellar TMS are safe, well-tolerated, and associated with functional improvements primarily in motor disorders-such as spinocerebellar ataxia, Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, essential tremor, and post-stroke deficits-as well as in psychiatric populations, particularly patients with schizophrenia. Discussion: Evidence regarding the effects of cerebellar TMS on cognitive functions remains limited, though promising. Despite overall positive findings, the literature is limited by variability in stimulation parameters, protocol designs, and outcome measures, small sample sizes and potential publication bias. Conclusions: The review highlights the need for further large-scale and well-controlled trials to refine stimulation protocols, explore long-term effects, and clarify the underlying mechanisms of cerebellar TMS across motor, cognitive, and affective domains. This systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251067308).
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.