ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2016
Cognitive and Neurophysiological Effects of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke Patients after Motor Rehabilitation.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined Use of Electroencephalography and Transcranial Electrical Stimulation: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of a single session of tDCS on cerebellum vs. motor cortex in stroke patients: a randomized sham-controlled trial.Annals of medicine · 2023Trial
- Congenital HSV-2 infection with atypical skin lesions, chorioretinitis, and neurodevelopmental sequelae: a case report.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Neuromodulation and rehabilitation of post-stroke cognitive impairment: challenges and prospects.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Primary Motor Cortex beyond Motor Rehabilitation: A Review of the Current Evidence.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- Improvement of Impulsivity and Decision Making by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in a Patient with Gambling Disorder.Journal of gambling studies · 2022Article
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex in stroke survivors-more than motor rehabilitation: A mini-review.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Review
- Short term effects of anodal cerebellar vs. anodal cerebral transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke patients, a randomized control trial.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Precise Modulation Strategies for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Advances and Future Directions.Neuroscience bulletin · 2021Review
- High-Frequency rTMS Improves Cognitive Function by Regulating Synaptic Plasticity in Cerebral Ischemic Rats.Neurochemical research · 2021Article
- Systemic Review on Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Parameters and EEG/fNIRS Features for Brain Diseases.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Bilateral Motor Cortex tDCS Effects on Post-Stroke Pain and Spasticity: A Three Cases Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Unilateral Spatial Neglect After Stroke: Current Insights.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2020Review
- Neuroplasticity and Epilepsy Surgery in Brain Eloquent Areas: Case Report.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Neurotechnology-aided interventions for upper limb motor rehabilitation in severe chronic stroke.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2019Review
- No Effect of the Right Posterior Parietal Cortex tDCS in Dual-Target Visual Search.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Transcranial direct current stimulation as a motor neurorehabilitation tool: an empirical review.Biomedical engineering online · 2017Review
- The Effects of rTMS Combined with Motor Training on Functional Connectivity in Alpha Frequency Band.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two specific Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) paradigms, the repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), in the upper limb rehabilitation of patients with stroke. Short and long term outcomes (after 3 and 6 months, respectively) were evaluated. We measured, at multiple time points, the manual dexterity using a validated clinical scale (ARAT), electroencephalography auditory event related potentials, and neuropsychological performances in patients with chronic stroke of middle severity. Thirty four patients were enrolled and randomized. The intervention group was treated with a NIBS protocol longer than usual, applying a second cycle of stimulation, after a washout period, using different techniques in the two cycles (rTMS/tDCS). We compared the results with a control group treated with sham stimulation. We split the data analysis into three studies. In this first study we examined if a cumulative effect was clinically visible. In the second study we compared the effects of the two techniques. In the third study we explored if patients with minor cognitive impairment have most benefit from the treatment and if cognitive and motor outcomes were correlated. We found that the impairment in some cognitive domains cannot be considered an exclusion criterion for rehabilitation with NIBS. ERP improved, related to cognitive and attentional processes after stimulation on the motor cortex, but transitorily. This effect could be linked to the restoration of hemispheric balance or by the effects of distant connections. In our study the effects of the two NIBS were comparable, with some advantages using tDCS vs. rTMS in stroke rehabilitation. Finally we found that more than one cycle (2-4 weeks), spaced out by washout periods, should be used, only in responder patients, to obtain clinical relevant results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.