Trial reportNeuroRehabilitation2018
The effect of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on corticospinal excitability in chronic incomplete spinal cord injury.
Trial report in NeuroRehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modulations in neural pathways excitability post transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation among individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation shows no effect on paired stimulation suppression of the somatosensory cortex.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Therapeutic Effects of Noninvasive Technology Modalities on Lower-Limb Motor Function in Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Review
- Effects of Transcranial and Trans-Spinal Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Robot-Assisted Gait Training on Gait and Fatigue in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Case report: Virtual reality-based arm and leg cycling combined with transcutaneous electrical spinal cord stimulation for early treatment of a cervical spinal cord injured patient.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Spinal cord stimulation for spinal cord injury - Where do we stand? A narrative review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023Article
- Modeling Electric Fields in Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation: A Clinical Perspective.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Spinal Cord Injury Community Personal Opinions and Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2023Article
- A Review of Functional Restoration From Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury.Neurospine · 2022Article
- Trans-Spinal Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Functional Rehabilitation after Spinal Cord Injury: Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Neural Substrates of Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation: Neuromodulation across Multiple Segments of the Spinal Cord.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Combined neuromuscular electrical stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation increases motor cortical plasticity in healthy humans.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Multimodal treatment for spinal cord injury: a sword of neuroregeneration upon neuromodulation.Neural regeneration research · 2020Review
- Beyond the target area: an integrative view of tDCS-induced motor cortex modulation in patients and athletes.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigated the feasibility of modulating bilateral corticospinal excitability with different polarities of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) in chronic, incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI).
methodsSix subjects with chronic incomplete SCI (>12 months post injury) participated in this crossover study. Intervention consisted of 3 sessions, separated by at least 1 week, in which each subject received the conditions cathodal, anodal, and sham tsDCS. Stimulation was delivered at 2.5 mA for 20 minutes with the active electrode positioned over the spinous processes of T10-T11 and the reference electrode over left deltoid. To measure the effects of tsDCS on corticospinal excitability, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from transcranial magnetic stimulation were measured bilaterally from soleus before and after tsDCS.
resultsFive subjects completed all 3 sessions. One subject withdrew after 2 sessions due to complications unrelated to the study. MEPs were measurable in 5 subjects. No significant differences in change of MEP amplitudes were found between the 3 conditions. However, there were trends that indicated laterality of response, particularly with cathodal tsDCS increasing corticospinal excitability contralateral to the reference electrode and decreasing corticospinal excitability ipsilateral to the reference electrode.
conclusionCorticospinal excitability may be modulated with laterality by tsDCS in individuals with chronic, incomplete SCI. Further research is needed to 1) determine whether different placement of the reference electrode can lead to uniform modulation bilaterally, and 2) reveal whether these alterations in corticospinal excitability can lead to improved movement function in individuals with chronic, incomplete SCI.
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.