Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27147964›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2016

Improving Interference Control in ADHD Patients with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS).

Carolin Breitling, Tino Zaehle, Moritz Dannhauer, Björn Bonath, Jana Tegelbeckers, Hans-Henning Flechtner, Kerstin Krauel

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Carolin BreitlingDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Magdeburg Magdeburg, Germany.
Tino ZaehleDepartment of Neurology, University of Magdeburg Magdeburg, Germany.
Moritz DannhauerScientific Computing and Imaging Institute, Center for Integrated Biomedical Computing, University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Björn BonathDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Magdeburg Magdeburg, Germany.
Jana TegelbeckersDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Magdeburg Magdeburg, Germany.
Hans-Henning FlechtnerDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Magdeburg Magdeburg, Germany.
Kerstin KrauelDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of MagdeburgMagdeburg, Germany; Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences, University of MagdeburgMagdeburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been suggested as a promising alternative to psychopharmacological treatment approaches due to its local and network effects on brain activation. In the current study, we investigated the impact of tDCS over the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) on interference control in 21 male adolescents with ADHD and 21 age matched healthy controls aged 13-17 years, who underwent three separate sessions of tDCS (anodal, cathodal, and sham) while completing a Flanker task. Even though anodal stimulation appeared to diminish commission errors in the ADHD group, the overall analysis revealed no significant effect of tDCS. Since participants showed a considerable learning effect from the first to the second session, performance in the first session was separately analyzed. ADHD patients receiving sham stimulation in the first session showed impaired interference control compared to healthy control participants whereas ADHD patients who were exposed to anodal stimulation, showed comparable performance levels (commission errors, reaction time variability) to the control group. These results suggest that anodal tDCS of the right inferior frontal gyrus could improve interference control in patients with ADHD.

Indexed as

ADHDattention deficit hyperactivity disorderflanker taskinhibitory controlinterference controlright inferior frontal gyrustDCStranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID27147964
PMCPMC4834583

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.