Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32675686›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation2020

Transcranial direct current stimulation for improving ambulation after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hui-Hsun Tien, Wen-Yu Liu, Yi-Lin Chen, Yi-Chen Wu, Hen-Yu Lien

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Hui-Hsun TienDepartment of Physical Therapy, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City.
Wen-Yu LiuSchool of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City.
Yi-Lin ChenDepartment of Physical Therapy, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City.
Yi-Chen WuCardiac Rehabilitation Center, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei.
Hen-Yu LienSchool of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Achieving a sufficient level of functional ambulation remains to be a challenge to most stroke survivors. Different modes of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been applied for improving various aspects of walking and mobility following stroke. However, systematic reviews before 2017 provided only general effects of tDCS on limited walking outcomes. Therefore, the aims of this study were to update the evidence of tDCS for improving walking and mobility after stroke with emphasis on individual outcomes and to delineate the effects of different modes of tDCS in subgroup analysis. The systematic search of PubMed, Medline, PEDro, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies published up to January 2019 identified 14 eligible reports. The PEDro scale indicated a good methodological quality of the included studies (score 6.8). The meta-analysis of primary outcomes revealed that active tDCS had no better effect than sham on walking speed [n = 7, standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.189, P = 0.252] and 6-minute walking distance (n = 3, SMD = 0.209, P = 0.453). Among the secondary outcomes, significant positive effects were found on functional ambulation category (FAC) (n = 5, SMD = 0.542, P = 0.008), Rivermead Mobility Index (n = 3, SMD = 0.699, P = 0.008), and timed up and go test (TUG) (n = 5, SMD = 0.676, P = 0.001), whereas non-significant positive effects were found on Tinetti test (n = 3, SMD = 0.441, P = 0.062) and Berg Balance Scale (n = 2, SMD = 0.408, P = 0.177). In subgroup analyses, anodal tDCS had significant positive effects on FAC (n = 4, SMD = 0.611, P = 0.005) and dual-hemispheric tDCS on TUG (n = 2, SMD = 1.090, P = 0.000). The results provide up-to-date evidence of variable effects of tDCS on walking and functional mobility after stroke.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationExercise TestGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansStroke Rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID32675686
PMCPMC7643800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.