Accelerated continuous theta burst stimulation targeting left primary motor cortex for children with autism spectrum disorder: multicentre randomised sham controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Accelerated continuous theta burst stimulation targeting left primary motor cortex for children with autism spectrum disorder: multicentre randomised sham controlled trial.
Item: Accelerated continuous theta burst stimulation targeting left primary motor cortex for children with autism spectrum disorder: multicentre randomised sham controlled trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Tan H, Ren T, Cao A, Fang S, Deng L, Hu B, Wang M, Cheng Y, Zhang X, Li Y, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Chen L, Zhou W, Zhang Q, Li J, Zhou X, Langley C, Luo Q, Zhang J, Sahakian BJ, Yuan TF, Li F

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 2.75★ (Weak), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Accelerated continuous theta burst stimulation targeting left primary motor cortex for children with autism spectrum disorder: multicentre randomised sham controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

2.75 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×3−1.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced4 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions2

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Broken references and links1

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted multicentre randomised sham-controlled trial with rigorous design, clear reporting, and adequate ethical and data-sharing practices. Minor reporting issues (threshold p-values, a typographical error in Table 3) do not affect the overall integrity of the study.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and this was adopted. The evaluation covered the full text, with verification components checking citations, statistics, reproducibility, and preregistration. Non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell lines) were excluded from scoring.

9 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit.

Recomputed 4 tests: 4 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 4 via agent-written checks.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior research on rTMS in ASD and acknowledges limitations of previous studies, including exclusion of young children and those with intellectual disability. The rationale links these gaps to the study's objectives and hypothesis. The paper also describes how the new protocol addresses prior limitations.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise, citing prior work and providing a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“However, current empirical evidence remains limited and inconclusive.”