Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26029052›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2015

The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies.

Lucia M Li, Kazumasa Uehara, Takashi Hanakawa

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 208 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
208citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
23.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

208 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 472 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. Multisession tDCS combined with intrastimulation training improves emotion recognition in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2024
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

148 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lucia M LiDepartment of Advanced Neuroimaging, Integrative Brain Imaging Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry Tokyo, Japan ; Computational, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Laboratory, Division of Restorative Neurosciences, Imperial College London London, UK.
Kazumasa UeharaDepartment of Advanced Neuroimaging, Integrative Brain Imaging Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry Tokyo, Japan ; Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Tokyo Japan.
Takashi HanakawaDepartment of Advanced Neuroimaging, Integrative Brain Imaging Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry Tokyo, Japan.
National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry · JPWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been an explosion of research using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for investigating and modulating human cognitive and motor function in healthy populations. It has also been used in many studies seeking to improve deficits in disease populations. With the slew of studies reporting "promising results" for everything from motor recovery after stroke to boosting memory function, one could be easily seduced by the idea of tDCS being the next panacea for all neurological ills. However, huge variability exists in the reported effects of tDCS, with great variability in the effect sizes and even contradictory results reported. In this review, we consider the interindividual factors that may contribute to this variability. In particular, we discuss the importance of baseline neuronal state and features, anatomy, age and the inherent variability in the injured brain. We additionally consider how interindividual variability affects the results of motor-evoked potential (MEP) testing with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which, in turn, can lead to apparent variability in response to tDCS in motor studies.

Indexed as

cognitioninterindividual variabilitymotor-evoked potentialtranscranial direct current stimulationtranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID26029052
PMCPMC4428123
OpenAlexW1544668095

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.