Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26191036›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2015

Brain Plasticity Effects of Neuromodulation Against Multiple Sclerosis Fatigue.

Franca Tecchio, Andrea Cancelli, Carlo Cottone, Roberta Ferrucci, Maurizio Vergari, Giancarlo Zito, Patrizio Pasqualetti, Maria Maddalena Filippi, Anna Ghazaryan, Domenico Lupoi and 7 more

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

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Neurobiology of Pathological Fatigue: New Models, New Questions.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Franca TecchioLaboratory of Electrophysiology for Translational neuroScience (LET'S), Department of Neuroscience, ISTC, CNR, Fatebenefratelli Hospital - Isola Tiberina , Rome , Italy ; Unit of Neuroimaging, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana , Rome , Italy.
Andrea CancelliLaboratory of Electrophysiology for Translational neuroScience (LET'S), Department of Neuroscience, ISTC, CNR, Fatebenefratelli Hospital - Isola Tiberina , Rome , Italy ; Clinical Neurology, Catholic University, Policlinico A. Gemelli , Rome , Italy.
Carlo CottoneLaboratory of Electrophysiology for Translational neuroScience (LET'S), Department of Neuroscience, ISTC, CNR, Fatebenefratelli Hospital - Isola Tiberina , Rome , Italy.
Roberta FerrucciFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico and Università degli Studi di Milano , Milan , Italy.
Maurizio VergariFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico and Università degli Studi di Milano , Milan , Italy.
Giancarlo ZitoLaboratory of Electrophysiology for Translational neuroScience (LET'S), Department of Neuroscience, ISTC, CNR, Fatebenefratelli Hospital - Isola Tiberina , Rome , Italy ; AFaR Division, Fatebenefratelli Foundation for Health Research and Education , Rome , Italy.
Patrizio PasqualettiUnit of Neuroimaging, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana , Rome , Italy ; AFaR Division, Fatebenefratelli Foundation for Health Research and Education , Rome , Italy.
Maria Maddalena FilippiAFaR Division, Fatebenefratelli Foundation for Health Research and Education , Rome , Italy.
Anna GhazaryanLaboratory of Electrophysiology for Translational neuroScience (LET'S), Department of Neuroscience, ISTC, CNR, Fatebenefratelli Hospital - Isola Tiberina , Rome , Italy ; AFaR Division, Fatebenefratelli Foundation for Health Research and Education , Rome , Italy.
Domenico LupoiAFaR Division, Fatebenefratelli Foundation for Health Research and Education , Rome , Italy.
Fenne M SmitsUniversity of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , Netherlands.
Alessandro GiordaniClinical Neurology, Catholic University, Policlinico A. Gemelli , Rome , Italy ; AFaR Division, Fatebenefratelli Foundation for Health Research and Education , Rome , Italy.
Simone MiglioreUniversity of Campus Biomedico, Psychology Service , Rome , Italy.
Camillo PorcaroLaboratory of Electrophysiology for Translational neuroScience (LET'S), Department of Neuroscience, ISTC, CNR, Fatebenefratelli Hospital - Isola Tiberina , Rome , Italy ; Institute of Neuroscience, Medical School, Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.
Carlo SalustriLaboratory of Electrophysiology for Translational neuroScience (LET'S), Department of Neuroscience, ISTC, CNR, Fatebenefratelli Hospital - Isola Tiberina , Rome , Italy.
Paolo M RossiniUnit of Neuroimaging, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana , Rome , Italy ; Clinical Neurology, Catholic University, Policlinico A. Gemelli , Rome , Italy.
Alberto PrioriFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico and Università degli Studi di Milano , Milan , Italy.
University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleWe recently reported on the efficacy of a personalized transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) treatment in reducing multiple sclerosis (MS) fatigue. The result supports the notion that interventions targeted at modifying abnormal excitability within the sensorimotor network could represent valid non-pharmacological treatments.

objectiveThe present work aimed at assessing whether the mentioned intervention also induces changes in the excitability of sensorimotor cortical areas.

methodTwo separate groups of fatigued MS patients were given a 5-day tDCS treatments targeting, respectively, the whole body somatosensory areas (S1wb) and the hand sensorimotor areas (SM1hand). The study had a double blind, sham-controlled, randomized, cross-over (Real vs. Sham) design. Before and after each treatment, we measured fatigue levels (by the modified fatigue impact scale, mFIS), motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in response to median nerve stimulation. We took MEPs and SEPs as measures of the excitability of the primary motor area (M1) and the primary somatosensory area (S1), respectively.

resultsThe Real S1wb treatment produced a 27% reduction of the mFIS baseline level, while the SM1hand treatment showed no difference between Real and Sham stimulations. M1 excitability increased on average 6% of the baseline in the S1wb group and 40% in the SM1hand group. Observed SEP changes were not significant and we found no association between M1 excitability changes and mFIS decrease.

conclusionThe tDCS treatment was more effective against MS fatigue when the electrode was focused on the bilateral whole body somatosensory area. Changes in S1 and M1 excitability did not correlate with symptoms amelioration. SIGNIFICANCE: The neuromodulation treatment that proved effective against MS fatigue induced only minor variations of the motor cortex excitability, not enough to explain the beneficial effects of the intervention.

Indexed as

electrode personalizationelectroencephalographyfatigue in multiple sclerosismagnetic resonance imagingtranscranial direct current stimulationtranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID26191036
PMCPMC4490242
OpenAlexW1553412221

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.