The objective of this systematic review is to create an overview of the literature on the comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) as a mapping tool to the current gold standard, which is (intraoperative) direct cortical stimulation (DCS) mapping. A search in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations were used. Thirty-five publications were included in the review, describing a total of 552 patients. All studies concerned either mapping of motor or language function. No comparative data for nTMS and DCS for other neurological functions were found. For motor mapping, the distances between the cortical representation of the different muscle groups identified by nTMS and DCS varied between 2 and 16 mm. Regarding mapping of language function, solely an object naming task was performed in the comparative studies on nTMS and DCS. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 10 to 100% and 13.3–98%, respectively, when nTMS language mapping was compared with DCS mapping. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) ranged from 17 to 75% and 57–100% respectively. The available evidence for nTMS as a mapping modality for motor and language function is discussed.

本系统评价的目的是对导航经颅磁刺激 (nTMS) 作为映射工具与当前黄金标准 (术中) 直接皮层刺激 (DCS) 映射进行比较的文献进行概述。在 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Web of Science 的数据库中进行了搜索。使用了系统评价和元分析的首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 指南和建​​议。综述中收录了 35 篇出版物，共描述了 552 名患者。所有研究都涉及运动或语言功能的映射。没有发现其他神经功能的 nTMS 和 DCS 的比较数据。对于电机映射，nTMS 和 DCS 识别的不同肌肉群的皮层表示之间的距离在 2 到 16 毫米之间变化。关于语言功能的映射，在 nTMS 和 DCS 的比较研究中仅执行了对象命名任务。将 nTMS 语言映射与 DCS 映射进行比较时，灵敏度和特异性的范围分别为 10% 到 100% 和 13.3-98%。阳性预测值 (PPV) 和阴性预测值 (NPV) 的范围分别为 17-75% 和 57-100%。讨论了 nTMS 作为运动和语言功能映射方式的可用证据。当 nTMS 语言映射与 DCS 映射进行比较时。阳性预测值 (PPV) 和阴性预测值 (NPV) 的范围分别为 17-75% 和 57-100%。讨论了 nTMS 作为运动和语言功能映射方式的可用证据。当 nTMS 语言映射与 DCS 映射进行比较时。阳性预测值 (PPV) 和阴性预测值 (NPV) 的范围分别为 17-75% 和 57-100%。讨论了 nTMS 作为运动和语言功能映射方式的可用证据。