Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24119615›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

Effectiveness and neural mechanisms associated with tDCS delivered to premotor cortex in stroke rehabilitation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Ela B Plow, David A Cunningham, Erik Beall, Stephen Jones, Alexandria Wyant, Corin Bonnett, Guang H Yue, Mark Lowe, Xiao-Feng Wang, Ken Sakaie and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01539096 (Brain Stimulation-aided Stroke Rehabilitation), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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.

NCT01539096 phase1 / phase2completednot on this map

Brain Stimulation-aided Stroke Rehabilitation: Neural Mechanisms of Recovery

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Cleveland ClinicRan2011 to 2019Enrolled67ConditionsStrokeArmstDCS: noninvasive brain stimulation, Constraint induced movement therapy (CIMT), Sham tDCS: placebo noninvasive brain stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Stratifying chronic stroke patients based on the influence of contralesional motor cortices: An inter-hemispheric inhibition study.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Neurorestoration after stroke.Neurosurgical focus · 2016
    Review
  12. Challenges in Recruitment for the Study of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke: Lessons from Deep Brain Stimulation.Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2016
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. It takes two: noninvasive brain stimulation combined with neurorehabilitation.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Invasive neurostimulation in stroke rehabilitation.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ela B PlowDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Instt,, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, ND20, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. plowe2@ccf.org.
David A Cunningham
Erik Beall
Stephen Jones
Alexandria Wyant
Corin Bonnett
Guang H Yue
Mark Lowe
Xiao-Feng Wang
Ken Sakaie
Andre Machado
Cleveland Clinic · USCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine · USKessler Foundation · USThe Neurological Institute · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR000439 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$50.0M
Deep brain stimulation of the ventral anterior limb of the internal capsule for mDP2OD006469 · OD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI MACHADO, ANDRE GUELMAN · 2009 to 2009
$2.4M
Dentatothalamocortical electrical stimulation in post-stroke motor recoveryR01HD061363 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI MACHADO, ANDRE GUELMAN · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
Brain Stimulation- aided Stroke Rehabilitation: Neural Mechanisms of RecoveryK01HD069504 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI PLOW, ELA B · 2011 to 2015
$531k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000439NICHD NIH HHS 1K01HD069504NICHD NIH HHS K01 HD069504NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD061363NICHD NIH HHS R01HD061363NICHD NIH HHS R01HD061363.NIH HHS 1DP2OD006469
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than 60% of stroke survivors experience residual deficits of the paretic upper limb/hand. Standard rehabilitation generates modest gains. Stimulation delivered to the surviving Primary Motor Cortex in the stroke-affected hemisphere has been considered a promising adjunct. However, recent trials challenge its advantage. We discuss our pilot clinical trial that aims to address factors implicated in divergent success of the approach. We assess safety, feasibility and efficacy of targeting an alternate locus during rehabilitation- the premotor cortex. In anticipating variance across patients, we measure neural markers differentiating response from non-response. METHODS/

designIn a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded pilot clinical study, patients with chronic stroke (n = 20) are assigned to receive transcranial direct current stimulation delivered to the premotor cortex or sham during rehabilitation of the paretic arm/hand. Patients receive the designated intervention for 30 min, twice a day for 3 days a week for 5 weeks. We assess hand function and patients' reports of use of paretic hand. A general linear mixed methods model will analyze changes from pre- to post-intervention. Responders and non-responders will be compared upon baseline level of function, and neural substrates, including function and integrity of output tracts, bi-hemispheric balance, and lesion profile. Incidence of adverse events will be compared using Fisher's Exact test, while rigor of blinding will be assessed with Chi-square analysis to ascertain feasibility. DISCUSSION: Variable success of cortical stimulation in rehabilitation can be related to gaps in theoretical basis and clinical investigation. Given that most patients with severe deficits have damage to the primary motor cortex or its output pathways, it would be futile to target stimulation to this site. We suggest targeting premotor cortex because it contributes substantially to descending output, a role that is amplified with greater damage to the motor cortex. With regards to clinical investigation, paired cortical stimulation in rehabilitation has been compared to rehabilitation alone in unblinded trials or to unconvincing sham conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation, a noninvasive technique of brain stimulation, which offers a more effective placebo and has a favorable safety-feasibility profile, may improve scientific rigor. Neural markers of response would help inform patient selection for future clinical trials so we can address limitations of recent negative studies.

trial registrationNCT01539096.

Indexed as

Research DesignStroke RehabilitationCerebral CortexChi-Square DistributionClinical ProtocolsDouble-Blind MethodFeasibility StudiesHumansLinear ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingOhioPhysical ExaminationPilot ProjectsRecovery of FunctionStrokeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID24119615
PMCPMC3852558
OpenAlexW2119463368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.