ReviewNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2009
Commentary: physical approaches for the treatment of epilepsy: electrical and magnetic stimulation and cooling.
Review in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04780152 (Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) in Pediatric and Teenage Patients With Major Depressive Disorder During COVID-19 Pandemics
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Dissociation of motor task-induced cortical excitability and pain perception changes in healthy volunteers.PloS one · 2012Trial
- Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation: A Potential Risk for Genetic Generalized Epilepsy Patients (Study Case).Frontiers in neurology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical approaches for the treatment of epilepsy currently under study or development include electrical or magnetic brain stimulators and cooling devices, each of which may be implanted or applied externally. Some devices may stimulate peripheral structures, whereas others may be implanted directly into the brain. Stimulation may be delivered chronically, intermittently, or in response to either manual activation or computer-based detection of events of interest. Physical approaches may therefore ultimately be appropriate for seizure prophylaxis by causing a modification of the underlying substrate, presumably with a reduction in the intrinsic excitability of cerebral structures, or for seizure termination, by interfering with the spontaneous discharge of pathological neuronal networks. Clinical trials of device-based therapies are difficult due to ethical issues surrounding device implantation, problems with blinding, potential carryover effects that may occur in crossover designs if substrate modification occurs, and subject heterogeneity. Unresolved issues in the development of physical treatments include optimization of stimulation parameters, identification of the optimal volume of brain to be stimulated, development of adequate power supplies to stimulate the necessary areas, and a determination that stimulation itself does not promote epileptogenesis or adverse long-term effects on normal brain function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.