Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30925178›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

The effect of combined transcranial direct current stimulation and peripheral nerve electrical stimulation on corticospinal excitability.

Shota Tsuiki, Ryoki Sasaki, Shota Miyaguchi, Sho Kojima, Kei Saito, Yasuto Inukai, Mitsuhiro Masaki, Naofumi Otsuru, Hideaki Onishi

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shota TsuikiGraduate School, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4409-7126
Ryoki SasakiGraduate School, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.
Shota MiyaguchiInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.
Sho KojimaInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.
Kei SaitoInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.
Yasuto InukaiInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.
Mitsuhiro MasakiInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.
Naofumi OtsuruInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.
Hideaki OnishiInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata city, Japan.
Niigata University of Health and Welfare · JPTochigi Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (PES) can change corticospinal excitability. tDCS can be used to non-invasively modulate the cerebral cortex's excitability by applying weak current to an electrode attached to the head, and the effect varies with the electrode's polarity. Previous studies have reported the effect of combined tDCS and PES on corticospinal excitability; when compared to single stimulation, combined stimulation increases cortical excitability. In contrast, another study reported that the effect of tDCS is attenuated by PES; hence, there is no consensus opinion on the effect on combined stimulation. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the effect of combined tDCS and PES on corticospinal excitability. In Experiment 1, the combined stimulation of anodal tDCS and PES (anodal tDCS + PES) was performed, and in Experiment 2, a combined stimulation with PES, after cathodal tDCS (PES after cathodal tDCS), was performed using a homeostatic metaplasticity theoretical model. In Experiment 1, anodal tDCS produced a significant increase from baseline in motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude 10 min after stimulation, but no significant changes in MEP amplitude were observed with PES or the anodal tDCS + PES condition. Experiment 2 showed a significant decrease in MEP amplitude immediately after cathodal tDCS, and a significant increase in MEP amplitude 15 min after PES, but no significant change in MEP amplitude was observed with sequential PES following cathodal tDCS. In conclusion, our data indicate that PES with anodal tDCS suppressed the effect of tDCS. Also, PES after cathodal tDCS did not induce homeostatic metaplasticity and increase corticospinal excitability.

Indexed as

Cortical ExcitabilityTranscranial Direct Current StimulationEvoked PotentialsFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMotor NeuronsPeripheral NervesSpinal CordYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30925178
PMCPMC6440622
OpenAlexW2926377168

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.