Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29655257›Full record

Trial reportHuman brain mapping2018

Neuroplasticity and network connectivity of the motor cortex following stroke: A transcranial direct current stimulation study.

Brenton Hordacre, Bahar Moezzi, Michael C Ridding

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human brain mapping, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brenton HordacreThe Sansom Institute for Health Research, School of Health Sciences, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, 5001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7129-6684
Bahar MoezziThe Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005, Australia.
Michael C RiddingThe Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that has potential for clinical utility in neurorehabilitation. However, recent evidence indicates that the responses to tDCS are highly variable. This study investigated whether electroencephalographic (EEG) measures of functional connectivity of the target network were associated with the response to ipsilesional anodal tDCS in stroke survivors. Ten chronic stroke patients attended two experimental sessions in a randomized cross-over trial and received anodal or sham tDCS. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to quantify change in corticospinal excitability following tDCS. At the beginning of each session, functional connectivity was estimated using the debiased-weighted phase lag index from EEG recordings at rest. Magnetic resonance imaging identified lesion location and lesion volume. Partial least squares regression identified models of connectivity which maximally accounted for variance in anodal tDCS responses. Stronger connectivity of a network with a seed approximating the stimulated ipsilesional motor cortex, and clusters of electrodes approximating the ipsilesional parietal cortex and contralesional frontotemporal cortex in the alpha band (8-13 Hz) was strongly associated with a greater increase of corticospinal excitability following anodal tDCS. This association was not observed following sham stimulation. Addition of a structural measure(s) of injury (lesion volume) provided an improved model fit for connectivity between the seed electrode and ipsilesional parietal cortex, but not the contralesional frontotemporal cortex. TDCS has potential to greatly assist stroke rehabilitation and functional connectivity appears a robust and specific biomarker of response which may assist clinical translation of this therapy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain MappingChronic DiseaseCross-Over StudiesElectromyographyEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMotor CortexNeural PathwaysNeuronal Plasticityelectroencephalographymagnetic resonance imagingmotor cortexplasticitystroketranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID29655257
PMCPMC6866552

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.