Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2019
Cervical trans-spinal direct current stimulation: a modelling-experimental approach.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Noninvasive Trans-Spinal Direct Current Stimulation Improves Breathing in Mice Modeling an Obesity-Associated Central Hypoventilation Syndrome.Neuroscience bulletin · 2026Article
- Modeling strategies in non-invasive spinal stimulation: perspectives on state-of-the-art.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Spinal Cord Transcutaneous Stimulation in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Review Examining Upper Extremity Neuromotor Control, Recovery Mechanisms, and Future Directions.Journal of neurotrauma · 2024Review
- Direct current stimulation as a non-invasive therapeutic alternative for treating autonomic or non-autonomic neurological disorders affecting breathing.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2024Review
- Transspinal Direct Current Electrical Stimulation Selectively Affects the Excitability of the Corticospinal System, Depending on the Intensity but Not Motor Skills.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Modeling Electric Fields in Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation: A Clinical Perspective.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Trans-Spinal Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Functional Rehabilitation after Spinal Cord Injury: Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Lumbar trans-spinal direct current stimulation: A modeling-experimental approach to dorsal root ganglia stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrans-spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is a non-invasive technique with promising neuromodulatory effects on spinal cord (SC) circuitry. Computational studies are essential to guide effective tsDCS protocols for specific clinical applications. This study aims to combine modelling and experimental studies to determine the electrode montage that maximizes electric field (E-field) delivery during cervical tsDCS.
methodsCurrent and E-field distributions in the cervical SC were predicted for four electrode montages in a human realistic model using computational methods. A double-blind crossover and randomized exploratory study was conducted using the montage that maximized E-field delivery. tsDCS was applied for 15 min in 10 healthy subjects (anodal, cathodal, sham, with polarity assigned to the cervical electrode), with a current intensity of 2.5 mA, resulting in a total current charge density delivery of 90 mC/cm
resultsAll montages presented higher current density and E-field magnitudes in the cervical SC region between the electrodes. However, electrodes at C3 and T3 spinous processes (C3-T3) originated the highest E-field magnitude (0.50 V/m). Using C3-T3 montage we observed significant changes in N9 SEP latency (p = 0.006), but significance did not persist in pairwise comparisons (sham-anodal: p = 0.022; sham-cathodal: p = 0.619; anodal-cathodal: p = 0.018; α = 0.017, Bonferroni corrected). MEP latency and central motor conduction time (CMCT) modified significantly on stimulation (p = 0.007 and p = 0.015, respectively). In addition, pairwise comparisons confirmed significant differences between sham and cathodal conditions after Bonferroni correction for MEP latency (sham-anodal: p = 0.868; sham-cathodal: p = 0.011; anodal-cathodal: p = 0.023) and CMCT (sham-anodal: p = 0.929; sham-cathodal: p = 0.010; anodal-cathodal: p = 0.034).
conclusionsComputational models predicted higher E-field delivery in the cervical SC for the C3-T3 montage. Polarity-dependent effects in motor responses were reported using this montage consistent with spinal motor modulation. tsDCS experimental protocol designs should be guided by modelling studies to improve effectiveness.
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.