Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28402865›Full record

Trial reportClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology2017

Inhibition versus facilitation of contralesional motor cortices in stroke: Deriving a model to tailor brain stimulation.

Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian, Andre G Machado, Adriana B Conforto, Kelsey A Potter-Baker, David A Cunningham, Nicole M Varnerin, Xiaofeng Wang, Ken Sakaie, Ela B Plow

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT03868410 early_phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

A Novel Approach for Brain Stimulation in Severe Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Cleveland ClinicRan2019 to 2023Enrolled16ConditionsStrokeArmsNew Repetitive Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Approach, Conventional Repetitive Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Approach
NCT05381740 early_phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

A Novel Brain Stimulation for Bimanual Motor Function and Control in Chronic Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Cleveland ClinicRan2022 to 2024Enrolled17ConditionsStrokeArmsNovel rTMS Approach, Sham rTMS Approach
NCT06396715 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Optimal Therapeutic Dose of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Functional Upper Limb Recovery in People With Stroke: Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ChileRan2024 to 2025Enrolled36ConditionsStroke, Neurologic DeficitsArmsTranscranial direct current stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Vishwanath SankarasubramanianDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Andre G MachadoCenter for Neurological Restoration, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Adriana B ConfortoNeurology Clinical Division, Neurology Department, Hospital das Clinicas, São Paulo University, 05508-090 São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, 05652-900 São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Kelsey A Potter-BakerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
David A CunninghamDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA.
Nicole M VarnerinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Xiaofeng WangDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Ken SakaieDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Ela B PlowDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Center for Neurological Restoration, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Electronic address: plowe2@ccf.org.
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine · USCleveland Clinic · USHospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BRKent State University · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR000439 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$50.0M
Dentatothalamocortical electrical stimulation in post-stroke motor recoveryR01HD061363 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI MACHADO, ANDRE GUELMAN · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
Brain Stimulation- aided Stroke Rehabilitation: Neural Mechanisms of RecoveryK01HD069504 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI PLOW, ELA B · 2011 to 2015
$531k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000439NICHD NIH HHS K01 HD069504NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD061363
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe standard approach to brain stimulation in stroke is based on the premise that ipsilesional M1 (iM1) is important for motor function of the paretic upper limb, while contralesional cortices compete with iM1. Therefore, the approach typically advocates facilitating iM1 and/or inhibiting contralesional M1 (cM1). But, this approach fails to elicit much improvement in severely affected patients, who on account of extensive damage to ipsilesional pathways, cannot rely on iM1. These patients are believed to instead rely on the undamaged cortices, especially the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex (cPMd), for support of function of the paretic limb. Here, we tested for the first time whether facilitation of cPMd could improve paretic limb function in severely affected patients, and if a cut-off could be identified to separate responders to cPMd from responders to the standard approach to stimulation.

methodsIn a randomized, sham-controlled crossover study, fifteen patients received the standard approach of stimulation involving inhibition of cM1 and a new approach involving facilitation of cPMd using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Patients also received rTMS to control areas. At baseline, impairment [Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM

resultsFacilitation of cPMd generated more improvement in severely affected patients, who had experienced greater damage and impairment than a cut-off value of FA (0.5) and UEFM

conclusionsA preliminary cut-off level of severity separated responders for standard approach vs. facilitation of cPMd. SIGNIFICANCE: Cut-offs identified here could help select candidates for tailored stimulation in future studies so patients in all ranges of severity could potentially achieve maximum benefit in function of the paretic upper limb.

Indexed as

Transcranial Magnetic StimulationAgedBrain IschemiaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, NeurologicalMotor CortexNeural InhibitionStrokeUpper ExtremityDiffusion tensor imagingMotor cortexNeuronal plasticityPremotor cortexRehabilitationStrokeTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID28402865
PMCPMC5493996
OpenAlexW2599584350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.