Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30586389›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Acute effects of single dose transcranial direct current stimulation on muscle strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eduardo Lattari, Bruno R R Oliveira, Renato Sobral Monteiro Júnior, Silvio Rodrigues Marques Neto, Aldair J Oliveira, Geraldo A Maranhão Neto, Sergio Machado, Henning Budde

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 31 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 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. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Eduardo LattariPhysical Activity Sciences Post-Graduate Program (PGCAF), Salgado de Oliveira University (UNIVERSO), Niterói, RJ, Brazil.
Bruno R R OliveiraBrazilian Institute of Medicine of Rehabilitation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Renato Sobral Monteiro JúniorPhysical Education and Sport Department, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Silvio Rodrigues Marques NetoPhysical Activity Sciences Post-Graduate Program (PGCAF), Salgado de Oliveira University (UNIVERSO), Niterói, RJ, Brazil.
Aldair J OliveiraSchool of Physical Activity, Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Geraldo A Maranhão NetoPhysical Activity Sciences Post-Graduate Program (PGCAF), Salgado de Oliveira University (UNIVERSO), Niterói, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6201-2080
Sergio MachadoPhysical Activity Sciences Post-Graduate Program (PGCAF), Salgado de Oliveira University (UNIVERSO), Niterói, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8946-8467
Henning BuddeFaculty of Human Sciences, Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies investigating the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on muscle strength showed no consensus. Therefore, the purpose of this article was to systematically review the literature on the effects of single dose tDCS to improve muscle strength. A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMeb, ISI Web of Science, SciELO, and Scopus using search terms regarding tDCS and muscle strength. Studies were included in accordance with Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Setting (PICOS) including criteria. Healthy men and women, strength training practitioners or sedentary were selected. The acute effects of single dose anode stimulus of tDCS (a-tDCS) and the placebo stimulus of tDCS (sham) or no interventions were considered as an intervention and comparators, respectively. Measures related to muscle strength were analyzed. To conduct the analyses a weighted mean difference (WMD) and the standardized mean difference (SMD) were applied as appropriate. A total of 15 studies were included in this systematic review and 14 in meta-analysis. Regarding the maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC), a small effect was seen between tDCS and Sham with significant difference between the conditions (SMD = 0.29; CI95% = 0.05 to 0.54; Z = 2.36; p = 0.02). The muscular endurance measured by the seconds sustaining a percentage of MIVC demonstrated a large effect between tDCS and Sham (WMD = 43.66; CI95% = 29.76 to 57.55; Z = 6.16; p < 0.001), showing an improvement in muscular endurance after exposure to tDCS. However, muscular endurance based on total work showed a trivial effect between tDCS and Sham with no significant difference (SMD = 0.22; CI95% = -0.11 to 0.54; Z = 1.32, p = 0.19). This study suggests that the use of tDCS may promote increase in maximal voluntary contraction and muscular endurance through isometric contractions.

Indexed as

ElbowFemaleHumansIsometric ContractionKneeMaleMuscle ContractionMuscle StrengthResistance TrainingTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30586389
PMCPMC6306262

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.