Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28232816›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2017

Anatomical Parameters of tDCS to Modulate the Motor System after Stroke: A Review.

Stephanie Lefebvre, Sook-Lei Liew

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review: Resting state functional MRI as a biomarker for non-invasive brain stimulation in upper limb recovery post-stroke.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Stephanie LefebvreNeural Plasticity and Neurorehabilitation Laboratory, Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, Department of Neurology, Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA.
Sook-Lei LiewNeural Plasticity and Neurorehabilitation Laboratory, Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, Department of Neurology, Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA.

Funding

Rehabilitation Research Career Development ProgramK12HD055929 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI BROWN, DAVID A · 2007 to 2021
$11.7M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD055929
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation method to modulate the local field potential in neural tissue and consequently, cortical excitability. As tDCS is relatively portable, affordable, and accessible, the applications of tDCS to probe brain-behavior connections have rapidly increased in the last 10 years. One of the most promising applications is the use of tDCS to modulate excitability in the motor cortex after stroke and promote motor recovery. However, the results of clinical studies implementing tDCS to modulate motor excitability have been highly variable, with some studies demonstrating that as many as 50% or more of patients fail to show a response to stimulation. Much effort has therefore been dedicated to understand the sources of variability affecting tDCS efficacy. Possible suspects include the placement of the electrodes, task parameters during stimulation, dosing (current amplitude, duration of stimulation, frequency of stimulation), individual states (e.g., anxiety, motivation, attention), and more. In this review, we first briefly review potential sources of variability specific to stroke motor recovery following tDCS. We then examine how the anatomical variability in tDCS placement [e.g., neural target(s) and montages employed] may alter the neuromodulatory effects that tDCS exerts on the post-stroke motor system.

Indexed as

electrode placementmotor recoveryoptimal stimulation parametersstroketDCS

Identifiers

PMID28232816
PMCPMC5298973

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.