ArticlePloS one2017
The effects of cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on motor pathways supplying the upper limb in humans.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on spasticity in upper motor neuron conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spinal cord · 2023Pooled it
- Does trans-spinal direct current stimulation modulate the Hoffmann reflexes of healthy individuals? A systematic review and meta-analysisc.Spinal cord · 2018Pooled it
- Cervical trans-spinal direct current stimulation: a modelling-experimental approach.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019Trial
- Transcutaneous spinal random noise stimulation enhances motor memory consolidation and corticospinal transmission in humans.The Journal of physiology · 2025Article
- Transspinal Direct Current Electrical Stimulation Selectively Affects the Excitability of the Corticospinal System, Depending on the Intensity but Not Motor Skills.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The effect of cathodal transspinal direct current stimulation on tibialis anterior stretch reflex components in humans.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Article
- Sham-derived effects and the minimal reliability of theta burst stimulation.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Observational
- Anodal Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) Selectively Inhibits the Synaptic Efficacy of Nociceptive Transmission at Spinal Cord Level.Neuroscience · 2018Article
- Transspinal Direct Current Stimulation Produces Persistent Plasticity in Human Motor Pathways.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive, weak direct current stimulation can induce changes in excitability of underlying neural tissue. Many studies have used transcranial direct current stimulation to induce changes in the brain, however more recently a number of studies have used transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation to induce changes in the spinal cord. This study further characterises the effects following cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on motor pathways supplying the upper limb. In Study 1, on two separate days, participants (n = 12, 5 F) received 20 minutes of either real or sham direct current stimulation at 3 mA through electrodes placed in an anterior-posterior configuration over the neck (anode anterior). Biceps brachii, flexor carpi radialis and first dorsal interosseous responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (motor evoked potentials) and cervicomedullary stimulation (cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials) were measured before and after real or sham stimulation. In Study 2, on two separate days, participants (n = 12, 7 F) received either real or sham direct current stimulation in the same way as for Study 1. Before and after real or sham stimulation, median nerve stimulation elicited M waves and H reflexes in the flexor carpi radialis. H-reflex recruitment curves and homosynaptic depression of the H reflex were assessed. Results show that the effects of real and sham direct current stimulation did not differ for motor evoked potentials or cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials for any muscle, nor for H-reflex recruitment curve parameters or homosynaptic depression. Cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation with the parameters described here does not modify motor responses to corticospinal stimulation nor does it modify H reflexes of the upper limb. These results are important for the emerging field of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation.
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.