Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27123448›Full record

Trial reportBioMed research international2016

tDCS and Robotics on Upper Limb Stroke Rehabilitation: Effect Modification by Stroke Duration and Type of Stroke.

Sofia Straudi, Felipe Fregni, Carlotta Martinuzzi, Claudia Pavarelli, Stefano Salvioli, Nino Basaglia

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Comparative efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation protocols on upper-extremity motor function and activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors.

Sofia StraudiNeuroscience and Rehabilitation Department, Ferrara University Hospital, 44100 Ferrara, Italy.
Felipe FregniCenter of Neuromodulation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02129, USA.
Carlotta MartinuzziNeuroscience and Rehabilitation Department, Ferrara University Hospital, 44100 Ferrara, Italy.
Claudia PavarelliNeuroscience and Rehabilitation Department, Ferrara University Hospital, 44100 Ferrara, Italy.
Stefano SalvioliSchool of Physiotherapy, University of Ferrara, 44100 Ferrara, Italy.
Nino BasagliaNeuroscience and Rehabilitation Department, Ferrara University Hospital, 44100 Ferrara, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this exploratory pilot study is to test the effects of bilateral tDCS combined with upper extremity robot-assisted therapy (RAT) on stroke survivors. Methods. We enrolled 23 subjects who were allocated to 2 groups: RAT + real tDCS and RAT + sham-tDCS. Each patient underwent 10 sessions (5 sessions/week) over two weeks. Outcome measures were collected before and after treatment: (i) Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), (ii) Box and Block Test (BBT), and (iii) Motor Activity Log (MAL). Results. Both groups reported a significant improvement in FMA-UE score after treatment (p < 0.01). No significant between-groups differences were found in motor function. However, when the analysis was adjusted for stroke type and duration, a significant interaction effect (p < 0.05) was detected, showing that stroke duration (acute versus chronic) and type (cortical versus subcortical) modify the effect of tDCS and robotics on motor function. Patients with chronic and subcortical stroke benefited more from the treatments than patients with acute and cortical stroke, who presented very small changes. Conclusion. The additional use of bilateral tDCS to RAT seems to have a significant beneficial effect depending on the duration and type of stroke. These results should be verified by additional confirmatory studies.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationArmDemographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRoboticsSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID27123448
PMCPMC4830702

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.