Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27336413›Full record

Trial reportThe European journal of neuroscience2016

Systematic assessment of duration and intensity of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on primary motor cortex excitability.

Sara Tremblay, Félix Larochelle-Brunet, Louis-Philippe Lafleur, Sofia El Mouderrib, Jean-François Lepage, Hugo Théoret

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European journal of neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sara TremblayDépartement de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Félix Larochelle-BrunetDépartement de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Louis-Philippe LafleurDépartement de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Sofia El MouderribDépartement de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Jean-François LepageCentre de Recherche du CHU Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Hugo ThéoretDépartement de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the initial demonstration of linear effects of stimulation duration and intensity on the strength of after-effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), few studies have systematically assessed how varying these parameters modulates corticospinal excitability. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the effects of anodal tDCS on corticospinal excitability at two stimulation intensities (1 mA, 2 mA) and durations (10 min, 20 min), and determine the value of several variables in predicting response. Two groups of 20 individuals received, in two separate sessions, 1 and 2 mA anodal tDCS (left primary motor cortex (M1)-right supra-orbital montage) for either 10- or 20-min. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered over left M1 and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of the contralateral hand were recorded prior to tDCS and every 5 min for 20-min post-tDCS. The following predictive variables were evaluated: I-wave recruitment, stimulation intensity, baseline M1 excitability and inter-trial MEP variability. Results show that anodal tDCS failed to significantly modulate corticospinal excitability in all conditions. Furthermore, low response rates were identified across all parameter combinations. No baseline measure was significantly correlated with increases in MEP amplitude. However, a decrease in inter-trial MEP variability was linked to response to anodal tDCS. In conclusion, the present findings are consistent with recent reports showing high levels of inter-subject variability in the neurophysiological response to tDCS, which may partly explain inconsistent group results. Furthermore, the level of variability in the neurophysiological outcome measure, i.e. MEPs, appears to be related to response.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, MotorAdultAnalysis of VarianceFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexPyramidal TractsTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic Stimulationinter-subject variabilitymotor evoked potential variabilityprimary motor cortextranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID27336413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.