Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31003550›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2019

Short-Term Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Endurance and Maximal Force Production. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Carlos Alix-Fages, Salvador Romero-Arenas, Marcos Castro-Alonso, David Colomer-Poveda, Dan Río-Rodriguez, Agustín Jerez-Martínez, Miguel Fernandez-Del-Olmo, Gonzalo Márquez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Carlos Alix-FagesDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia 30107, Spain. calix@alu.ucam.edu.
Salvador Romero-ArenasDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia 30107, Spain. sromero@ucam.edu.
Marcos Castro-AlonsoDepartment of Physical Education, University of A Coruña, La Coruña 15279, Spain. marcoscastroalonso@gmail.com.
David Colomer-PovedaDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia 30107, Spain. dcolomer@ucam.edu.
Dan Río-RodriguezDepartment of Physical Education, University of A Coruña, La Coruña 15279, Spain. ganceus@gmail.com.
Agustín Jerez-MartínezDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia 30107, Spain. ajerez@alu.ucam.edu.
Miguel Fernandez-Del-OlmoDepartment of Physical Education, University of A Coruña, La Coruña 15279, Spain. mafo73@gmail.com.
Gonzalo MárquezDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia 30107, Spain. gmarquez@ucam.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on endurance (i.e., time to task failure (TTF)) and maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Furthermore, we aimed to analyze whether the duration of stimulation, the brain region targeted for stimulation, and the task performed could also influence motor performance. We performed a systematic literature review in the databases MEDLINE and Web of Science. The short-term effects of anodal tDCS and sham stimulation (placebo) were considered as experimental and control conditions, respectively. A total of 31 interventions were included (MVC = 13; TTF = 18). Analysis of the strength-related tDCS studies showed small improvements in the MVC (SMD = 0.19; 95% CI = -0.02, 0.41;

Indexed as

maximal voluntary contractionNon-invasive brain stimulationprefrontal cortexprimary motor cortextime to task failure

Identifiers

PMID31003550
PMCPMC6518246

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.