Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23799617›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in patients after stroke.

Bernhard Elsner, Joachim Kugler, Marcus Pohl, Jan Mehrholz

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01922245 (tDCS and Aphasia Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01922245 nacompletednot on this map

tDCS and Aphasia Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorHunter College of City University of New YorkRan2013 to 2016Enrolled1ConditionsAphasiaArmsSoterix 1x1 tDCS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Advances in Neuromodulation Techniques for Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Comprehensive Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Neuromodulation in post-stroke aphasia treatment.Current physical medicine and rehabilitation reports · 2020
    Article
  11. Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive function in stroke patients.The Egyptian journal of neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery · 2018
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Brain Stimulation and the Role of the Right Hemisphere in Aphasia Recovery.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2015
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bernhard ElsnerDepartment of Public Health, Dresden Medical School, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany. brnhrd.lsnr@googlemail.com.
Joachim Kugler
Marcus Pohl
Jan Mehrholz
TU Dresden · DEKlinik Bavaria · DE

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZB/4/784
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Aphasia among stroke survivors is common. Current speech and language therapy (SLT) strategies have only limited effectiveness in improving aphasia. A possible adjunct to SLT for improving SLT outcomes might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability and hence to improve aphasia.

objectivesTo assess the effects of tDCS for improving aphasia in patients after stroke. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, March 2012), MEDLINE (1948 to March 2012), EMBASE (1980 to March 2012), CINAHL (1982 to March 2012), AMED (1985 to April 2012), Science Citation Index (1899 to April 2012) and seven additional databases. We also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised controlled cross-over trials (from which we only analysed the first period as a parallel group design) comparing tDCS versus control in adults with aphasia due to stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. If necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trials. MAIN

resultsWe included five trials involving 54 participants. None of the included studies used any formal outcome measure for measuring functional communication, that is measuring aphasia in a real-life communicative setting. All five trials measured correct picture naming as a surrogate for aphasia. There was no evidence that tDCS enhanced SLT outcomes. No adverse events were reported and the proportion of dropouts was comparable between groups. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCurrently there is no evidence of the effectiveness of tDCS (anodal tDCS, cathodal tDCS) versus control (sham tDCS). However, it appears that cathodal tDCS over the non-lesioned hemisphere might be the most promising approach.

Indexed as

AdultAphasiaElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSkullStroke

Identifiers

PMID23799617
OpenAlexW1907035247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.