Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32797300›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurology2021

Transcranial direct current stimulation for post-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Sarah Marchina, Jessica M Pisegna, Joseph M Massaro, Susan E Langmore, Courtney McVey, Jeffrey Wang, Sandeep Kumar

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with dysphagia after stroke: a systematic review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. 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
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah MarchinaDepartment of Neurology, Stroke Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Palmer 127, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. smarchin@bidmc.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9969-9362
Jessica M PisegnaDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery Department, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Joseph M MassaroDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Susan E LangmoreDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery Department, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Courtney McVeyDepartment of Neurology, Stroke Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Palmer 127, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Jeffrey WangDepartment of Neurology, Stroke Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Palmer 127, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Sandeep KumarDepartment of Neurology, Stroke Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Palmer 127, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBoston University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated as a tool for dysphagia recovery after stroke in several single-center randomized controlled trials (RCT).

objectiveThe aim of this investigation was to quantitatively evaluate the effect of tDCS on dysphagia recovery after a stroke utilizing a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsMajor databases were searched through October 2019 using a pre-defined set of criteria. Any RCT investigating the efficacy of tDCS in post-stroke dysphagia using a standardized dysphagia scale as outcome measure was included. Studies were assessed for risk of bias and quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Effect sizes were calculated from extracted data and entered into a random effects analysis to obtain pooled estimates of the effect.

resultsSeven RCTs with a total sample size of 217 patients fulfilled the criteria and were included in the analysis. The overall results revealed a small but statistically significant pooled effect size (0.31; CI 0.03, 0.59; p = 0.03). The subgroup which explored the stimulation intensity yielded a moderately significant effect size for the low-intensity stimulation group (g = 0.44; CI = 0.08, 0.81 vs. g = 0.15, CI - 0.30, 0.61). For the other subgroup analyses, neither comparisons of affected vs. unaffected hemisphere or acute vs. chronic stroke phase revealed a significant result.

conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates a modest but significant beneficial effect of tDCS on improving post-stroke dysphagia. Whether benefits from this intervention are more pronounced in certain patient subgroups and with specific stimulation protocols requires further investigation.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersStrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDysphagiaMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialsStroketDCS

Identifiers

PMID32797300
OpenAlexW3049275605

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.