Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32066873›Full record

SynthesisSpinal cord2020

Effectiveness of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation to improve muscle strength and motor functionality after incomplete spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amanda Vitória Lacerda de Araújo, Felipe Piccarone Gonçalves Ribeiro, Thais Massetti, Kelsey A Potter-Baker, Mar Cortes, Ela Bhatt Plow, Talita Dias da Silva, James Tonks, Renato Anghinah, Fernando Henrique Magalhães and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Narrative review of current neuromodulation modalities for spinal cord injury.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The role of electrical stimulation for rehabilitation and regeneration after spinal cord injury.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2022
    Review
  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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Amanda Vitória Lacerda de AraújoSchool of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, Physical activity sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. amandavla@usp.br.
Felipe Piccarone Gonçalves RibeiroHarvard Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Thais MassettiSchool of Medicine, Rehabilitation Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Kelsey A Potter-BakerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Mar CortesRehabilitation and Human Performance Department, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Ela Bhatt PlowDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Talita Dias da SilvaSchool of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, Physical activity sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4683-4671
James TonksUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Haven Clinical Psychology Practice, Cornwall, UK.
Renato AnghinahSchool of Medicine, Rehabilitation Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fernando Henrique MagalhãesSchool of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, Physical activity sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Felipe FregniHarvard Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Carlos Bandeira de Mello MonteiroSchool of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, Physical activity sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2661-775X
Universidade de São Paulo · BRCleveland Clinic · USHarvard University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic review and meta-analysis.

objectivesWe aimed to investigate the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) against sham on muscle strength and motor functionality after incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI).

settingUniversity of São Paulo, Brazil.

methodsA preplanned protocol was registered (PROSPERO, CRD42016050444). Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Library and BVS databases were searched independently by two authors up to March 2018. Cochrane Collaboration's Tool was used for the risk of bias assessments. Generic inverse variance and random-effects model were used to calculate pooled effect sizes (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values in meta-analyses.

resultsSix randomized clinical trials met inclusion criteria (n = 78 iSCI individuals) and were included in the meta-analysis. Results showed a marginal significant pooled effect of active tDCS in improving motor functionality with a small ES (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI = -0.00 to 0.53, p = 0.05, I

conclusionsOverall, there was a significant effect of tDCS in improving motor functionality following iSCI. However, a small ES and the marginal p-value suggest that these results should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality clinical trials are needed to support or refute the use of tDCS in daily clinical practice.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthOutcome Assessment, Health CareRecovery of FunctionHumansSpinal Cord InjuriesTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID32066873
OpenAlexW3006040951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.