Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25461825›Full record

Trial reportArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2015

Intensity dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on corticospinal excitability in chronic spinal cord injury.

Lynda M Murray, Dylan J Edwards, Giulio Ruffini, Douglas Labar, Argyrios Stampas, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, Mar Cortes

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Lynda M MurrayNon-invasive Brain Stimulation and Human Motor Control Laboratory, Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Rumailah Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar; School of Exercise and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia. Electronic address: LMurray@hmc.org.qa.
Dylan J EdwardsNon-invasive Brain Stimulation and Human Motor Control Laboratory, Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Neurology Department, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY; Centre for Neuromuscular and Neurological Disorders, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Giulio RuffiniStarlab Barcelona SL, Barcelona, Spain.
Douglas LabarNon-invasive Brain Stimulation and Human Motor Control Laboratory, Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Neurology Department, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY.
Argyrios StampasBurke Rehabilitation Hospital, White Plains, NY.
Alvaro Pascual-LeoneBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Mar CortesNon-invasive Brain Stimulation and Human Motor Control Laboratory, Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Neurology Department, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY; Department of Neurology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Cornell University · USBerenson Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation · USBurke Rehabilitation Hospital · USHamad Medical Corporation · QAStarlab Barcelona SLU (Spain) · ESThe University of Western Australia · AU

Funding

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Robotic Training in Chronic StrokeR01HD069776 · NICHD · WINIFRED MASTERSON BURKE MED RES INST · PI EDWARDS, DYLAN JAMES · 2012 to 2016
$3.2M
Non-invasive stimulation for improving motor function in spinal cord injuryR21HD077616 · NICHD · WINIFRED MASTERSON BURKE MED RES INST · PI EDWARDS, DYLAN JAMES, PASCUAL-LEONE, ALVARO · 2013 to 2014
$519k
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD069776NICHD NIH HHS R01HD069776NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD077616NICHD NIH HHS R21HD077616
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) intensity on corticospinal excitability and affected muscle activation in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI).

designSingle-blind, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover study.

settingMedical research institute and rehabilitation hospital.

participantsVolunteers (N = 9) with chronic SCI and motor dysfunction in wrist extensor muscles.

interventionsThree single session exposures to 20 minutes of a-tDCS (anode over the extensor carpi radialis [ECR] muscle representation on the left primary motor cortex, cathode over the right supraorbital area) using 1 mA, 2 mA, or sham stimulation, delivered at rest, with at least 1 week between sessions.

main outcome measuresCorticospinal excitability was assessed with motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) from the ECR muscle using surface electromyography after transcranial magnetic stimulation. Changes in spinal excitability, sensory threshold, and muscle strength were also investigated.

resultsMean MEP amplitude significantly increased by approximately 40% immediately after 2mA a-tDCS (pre: 0.36 ± 0.1 mV; post: 0.47 ± 0.11 mV; P = .001), but not with 1 mA or sham. Maximal voluntary contraction measures remained unaltered across all conditions. Sensory threshold significantly decreased over time after 1mA (P = .002) and 2mA (P = .039) a-tDCS and did not change with sham. F-wave persistence showed a nonsignificant trend for increase (pre: 32% ± 12%; post: 41% ± 10%; follow-up: 46% ± 12%) after 2 mA stimulation. No adverse effects were reported with any of the experimental conditions.

conclusionsThe a-tDCS can transiently raise corticospinal excitability to affected muscles in patients with chronic SCI after 2 mA stimulation. Sensory perception can improve with both 1 and 2 mA stimulation. This study gives support to the safe and effective use of a-tDCS using small electrodes in patients with SCI and highlights the importance of stimulation intensity.

Indexed as

AdultChronic DiseaseCross-Over StudiesElectromyographyEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPyramidal TractsSingle-Blind MethodSpinal Cord InjuriesTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAnodal stimulation transcranial direct current stimulationRehabilitationSpinal cord injuriesUpper extremity

Identifiers

PMID25461825
PMCPMC4380548
OpenAlexW1975222490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.