Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24349067›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2013

Preliminary evidence that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhances time to task failure of a sustained submaximal contraction.

Petra S Williams, Richard L Hoffman, Brian C Clark

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Combining transcranial direct current stimulation with aerobic exercise to optimize cortical priming in stroke.Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme · 2021
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Petra S WilliamsOhio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, United States of America ; Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Richard L HoffmanOhio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, United States of America.
Brian C ClarkOhio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, United States of America ; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, United States of America ; Department of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, United States of America.

Funding

Intracortical Mechanisms of Muscle WeaknessR15HD065552 · NICHD · OHIO UNIVERSITY ATHENS · PI CLARK, BRIAN C · 2010 to 2011
$620k
NICHD NIH HHS R15 HD065552NICHD NIH HHS R15HD065552
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) delivered while performing a sustained submaximal contraction would increase time to task failure (TTF) compared to sham stimulation. Healthy volunteers (n = 18) performed two fatiguing contractions at 20% of maximum strength with the elbow flexors on separate occasions. During fatigue task performance, either anodal or sham stimulation was delivered to the motor cortex for up to 20 minutes. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to assess changes in cortical excitability during stimulation. There was no systematic effect of the anodal tDCS stimulation on TTF for the entire subject set (n = 18; p = 0.64). Accordingly, a posteriori subjects were divided into two tDCS-time groups: Full-Time (n = 8), where TTF occurred prior to the termination of tDCS, and Part-Time (n = 10), where TTF extended after tDCS terminated. The TTF for the Full-Time group was 31% longer with anodal tDCS compared to sham (p = 0.04), whereas TTF for the Part-Time group did not differ (p = 0.81). Therefore, the remainder of our analysis addressed the Full-Time group. With anodal tDCS, the amount of muscle fatigue was 6% greater at task failure (p = 0.05) and the amount of time the Full-Time group performed the task at an RPE between 8-10 ("very hard") increased by 38% (p = 0.04) compared to sham. There was no difference in measures of cortical excitability between stimulation conditions (p = 0.90). That the targeted delivery of anodal tDCS during task performance both increased TTF and the amount of muscle fatigue in a subset of subjects suggests that augmenting cortical excitability with tDCS enhanced descending drive to the spinal motorpool to recruit more motor units. The results also suggest that the application of tDCS during performance of fatiguing activity has the potential to bolster the capacity to exercise under conditions required to derive benefits due to overload.

Indexed as

Transcranial Magnetic StimulationAdultEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMuscle FatiguePsychomotor PerformanceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24349067
PMCPMC3857184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.