SynthesisFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022
Influence of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Dosage and Associated Therapy on Motor Recovery Post-stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06893653 (Combined Effects of Focal Muscle Vibration and tDCS on Motor Recovery in Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Combined Effects of Focal Muscle Vibration and tDCS on Motor Recovery in Stroke
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive brain stimulation for upper limb motor activity in children and young adults with cerebral palsy and pediatric stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Effects and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation on multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of randomized clinical trials.Molecular psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Combination of different noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for upper limb recovery in stroke patients: A systematic review.Brain and behavior · 2024Pooled it
- Transcranial direct current stimulation is safe and feasible in hyperacute ischemic stroke (DICAST-SF trial).Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Trial
- Effect of tDCS Concurrent With VR-Based Robotic Intervention on Hemiplegic Upper Limb Function After Subacute Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Study.Neural plasticity · 2025Trial
- Combined Functional Electrical and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Foot Drop: A Case Series.Journal of medical cases · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy and mechanistic insights of non-invasive neuromodulation and motor rehabilitation on functional reorganization of the supplementary motor area in subacute stroke: a narrative review.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Neurorehabilitation for cognitive and motor recovery: mechanisms, interventions, and translational advances.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Exploring the Prospects of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) as a Therapeutic Intervention for Post-Stroke Motor Recovery: A Narrative Review.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Modern Rehabilitation Technologies of Patients with Motor Disorders at an Early Rehabilitation of Stroke (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: (1) To determine the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied alone or combined with other therapies on the recovery of motor function after stroke and (2) To determine tDCS dosage effect. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of tDCS with sham, using the Barthel Index (BI), the upper and lower extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), and the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), were retrieved from PubMed, Medline (EBSCO), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from their inception to June 2021. Calculations for each assessment were done for the overall effect and associated therapy accounting for the influence of stroke severity or stimulation parameters. Results: A total of 31 studies involving metrics of the BI, the upper extremity FMA, the lower extremity FMA, and the MAS were included. tDCS combined with other therapies was beneficial when assessed by the BI (mean difference: 6.8; Conclusion: Potential benefits of tDCS can vary depending on assessment tool used, duration of stroke, and associated therapy. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the potential role of stimulation type and dosage effect after stroke. Future studies should carefully conduct group randomization, control for duration of stroke, and report different motor recovery assessments types. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021290670].
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.