Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28516033›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2017

The impact of large structural brain changes in chronic stroke patients on the electric field caused by transcranial brain stimulation.

Sena Minjoli, Guilherme B Saturnino, Jakob Udby Blicher, Charlotte J Stagg, Hartwig R Siebner, André Antunes, Axel Thielscher

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT05331560 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy and Safety of Transcranial Pulse Stimulation (TPS) in Older Adults With Mild Neurocognitive Disorder - an Open-label Self-controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2020 to 2024Enrolled20ConditionsMild Neurocognitive DisorderArmsTranscranial Pulse Stimulation (TPS)
NCT05602467 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of a 24-week Long Term Transcranial Pulse Stimulation (TPS) on Cognition and Brain Structure in Older Adults With Mild Neurocognitive Disorder (NCD)

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2022 to 2024Enrolled22ConditionsMild Neurocognitive DisorderArmsTranscranial Pulse Stimulation (TPS), Treatment as usual (TAU)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Safety and feasibility of transcranial direct current stimulation stratified by corticospinal organization in children with hemiparesis.European journal of paediatric neurology : EJPN : official journal of the European Paediatric Neurology Society · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Transcranial direct current stimulation and constraint-induced therapy in cerebral palsy: A randomized, blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial.European journal of paediatric neurology : EJPN : official journal of the European Paediatric Neurology Society · 2018
    Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Sena MinjoliDanish Research Center for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Guilherme B SaturninoDanish Research Center for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark; Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Jakob Udby BlicherDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University, Denmark; Department of Neurology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Charlotte J StaggCentre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, UK; Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA), Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, UK.
Hartwig R SiebnerDanish Research Center for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark; Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
André AntunesMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Axel ThielscherDanish Research Center for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark; Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany; Center for Magnetic Resonance, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Electronic address: axelt@drcmr.dk.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKAarhus University · DKBispebjerg Hospital · DKMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics · DEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 102584/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) are two types of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation (TBS). They are useful tools for stroke research and may be potential adjunct therapies for functional recovery. However, stroke often causes large cerebral lesions, which are commonly accompanied by a secondary enlargement of the ventricles and atrophy. These structural alterations substantially change the conductivity distribution inside the head, which may have potentially important consequences for both brain stimulation methods. We therefore aimed to characterize the impact of these changes on the spatial distribution of the electric field generated by both TBS methods. In addition to confirming the safety of TBS in the presence of large stroke-related structural changes, our aim was to clarify whether targeted stimulation is still possible. Realistic head models containing large cortical and subcortical stroke lesions in the right parietal cortex were created using MR images of two patients. For TMS, the electric field of a double coil was simulated using the finite-element method. Systematic variations of the coil position relative to the lesion were tested. For TDCS, the finite-element method was used to simulate a standard approach with two electrode pads, and the position of one electrode was systematically varied. For both TMS and TDCS, the lesion caused electric field "hot spots" in the cortex. However, these maxima were not substantially stronger than those seen in a healthy control. The electric field pattern induced by TMS was not substantially changed by the lesions. However, the average field strength generated by TDCS was substantially decreased. This effect occurred for both head models and even when both electrodes were distant to the lesion, caused by increased current shunting through the lesion and enlarged ventricles. Judging from the similar peak field strengths compared to the healthy control, both TBS methods are safe in patients with large brain lesions (in practice, however, additional factors such as potentially lowered thresholds for seizure-induction have to be considered). Focused stimulation by TMS seems to be possible, but standard tDCS protocols appear to be less efficient than they are in healthy subjects, strongly suggesting that tDCS studies in this population might benefit from individualized treatment planning based on realistic field calculations.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingModels, AnatomicStrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBrain lesionsChronic strokeField simulationsFinite element methodTranscranial direct current stimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID28516033
PMCPMC5426045
OpenAlexW2606945859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.