Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27450080›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2016

Facilitatory non-invasive brain stimulation in older adults: the effect of stimulation type and duration on the induction of motor cortex plasticity.

Rohan Puri, Mark R Hinder, Alison J Canty, Jeffery J Summers

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Rohan PuriSensorimotor Neuroscience and Ageing Laboratory, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 30, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia. rohan.puri@utas.edu.au.
Mark R HinderSensorimotor Neuroscience and Ageing Laboratory, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 30, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia.
Alison J CantyWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Jeffery J SummersSensorimotor Neuroscience and Ageing Laboratory, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 30, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia.
University of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite holding significant promise for counteracting the deleterious effects of ageing on cognitive and motor function, little is known of the effects of facilitatory non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS) techniques on corticospinal excitability (CSE) in older adults. Thirty-three older adults (≥60 years) participated in four NBS sessions on separate days, receiving 10- and 20-min anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS), and 300 and 600 pulses of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) over the left M1. Motor-evoked potentials measured in the contralateral hand served as a measure of CSE before and for 30 min following each NBS intervention. At the group level, generalized post-stimulation CSE increases were observed (p < 0.001) with no significant differences between the two durations of each stimulation type (atDCS: p = 0.5; iTBS: p = 0.9). For individuals exhibiting overall facilitatory change to atDCS ('responders', n = 10), 20-min atDCS resulted in longer lasting CSE facilitation than 10 min. No such difference was observed between the two iTBS protocols. Considerable variability was observed inter-individually, where 52-58 % of the cohort exhibited the expected facilitation after each of the NBS protocols-as well as intra-individually, where 45-48 % of the cohort maintained consistent post-stimulation responses across the varying durations and types of stimulation. In conclusion, as shown previously in young adults, older adults demonstrate substantial variability in response to different facilitatory NBS protocols. Studies to assess the intra-individual reliability of these protocols are critical to progress towards translation of appropriate protocols (i.e. those that elicit the greatest response for each individual) into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAgedAnalysis of VarianceBiophysicsElectromyographyEvoked Potentials, MotorFunctional LateralityHumansLocomotionMaleMiddle AgedMotor CortexMuscle ContractionMuscle StrengthNeuronal PlasticityPyramidal TractsNon-invasive brain stimulationOlder adultsPlasticityTheta burst stimulationTranscranial direct current stimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID27450080
OpenAlexW2503290506

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.