Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32516316›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Effect of transcranial direct-current stimulation on cognitive function in stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ru-Bing Yan, Xiao-Li Zhang, Yong-Hong Li, Jing-Ming Hou, Han Chen, Hong-Liang Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. tDCS and Speech Therapy in Aphasia Treatment: A Multicenter Comparative Study of Efficacy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ru-Bing YanDepartment of Rehabilitation, Southwest Hospital, PLA Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xiao-Li ZhangMedical Journal of Chinese PLA, Beijing, China.
Yong-Hong LiDepartment of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jing-Ming HouDepartment of Rehabilitation, Southwest Hospital, PLA Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Han ChenDepartment of Rehabilitation, Southwest Hospital, PLA Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Hong-Liang LiuDepartment of Rehabilitation, Southwest Hospital, PLA Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8516-3014
Army Medical University · CNDeleted InstitutionSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTranscranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive approach that can alter brain excitability. Several studies have shown the effectiveness of tDCS in improving language and movement function in stroke patients. However, the effect of tDCS on cognitive function after stroke remains uncertain.

methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the China Science and Technology Journal Database, and the Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform from inception to April 2, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. All statistical analyses were performed in RevMan 5.3, and the mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) were used as the pooled statistics.

resultsFifteen studies involving 820 participants were included. When compared with passive tDCS, anodal tDCS was associated with improved general cognitive performance as examined by the Minimum Mental State Examination or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (SMD = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-1.71, P < 0.00001), attention performance (SMD = 0.66, 95% CI 0.11-1.20, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in memory performance (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI -0.67-1.50, P = 0.46).

conclusionstDCS is likely to be effective for patients with cognitive impairment after stroke. The evidence for different effects based on population characteristics and stimulation methods was limited, but a real effect cannot be ruled out. More high-quality research in this field is required to determine the potential benefits of tDCS in the treatment of cognitive deficits after stroke and to establish the optimal treatment program.

Indexed as

CognitionRecovery of FunctionCognitive DysfunctionHumansStrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID32516316
PMCPMC7282637
OpenAlexW3033699040

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.