Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31878058›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2019

The Tolerability and Efficacy of 4 mA Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Leg Muscle Fatigability.

Craig D Workman, John Kamholz, Thorsten Rudroff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Churning Better Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Outcome with Accelerated Protocols: Understanding the Non-linear Dynamics through Metaplasticity.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Craig D WorkmanDepartment of Health and Human Physiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
John KamholzDepartment of Neurology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Thorsten RudroffDepartment of Health and Human Physiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
University of Iowa · USUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates cortical excitability and affects a variety of outcomes. tDCS at intensities ≤2 mA is well-tolerated, but the tolerability and efficacy of tDCS at intensities >2 mA merits systematic investigation. The study objective was to determine the tolerability and effects of 4 mA tDCS on leg muscle fatigability. Thirty-one young, healthy adults underwent two randomly ordered tDCS conditions (sham, 4 mA) applied before and during an isokinetic fatigue test of the knee extensors and flexors. Subjects reported the severity of the sensations felt from tDCS. Primary outcomes were sensation tolerability and the fatigue index of the knee extensors and flexors. A repeated-measures ANOVA determined statistical significance (

Indexed as

high intensitymuscle fatiguetolerabilitytranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID31878058
PMCPMC7017217
OpenAlexW2996046276

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.