Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35487132›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2022

Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study.

Yuki Mizutani-Tiebel, Shun Takahashi, Temmuz Karali, Eva Mezger, Lucia Bulubas, Irina Papazova, Esther Dechantsreiter, Sophia Stoecklein, Boris Papazov, Axel Thielscher and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) impacts activities of daily living of patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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.

Yuki Mizutani-TiebelDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; NeuroImaging Core Unit Munich (NICUM), Munich, Germany. Electronic address: yuki.tiebel@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Shun TakahashiDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; Department of Neuropsychiatry, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan; Clinical Research and Education Center, Asakayama General Hospital, Sakai, Japan; Graduate School of Rehabilitation Science, Osaka Metropolitan University, Habikino, Japan; Department of Psychiatry, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan.
Temmuz KaraliDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany.
Eva MezgerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany.
Lucia BulubasDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; International Max Planck Research School for Translational Psychiatry (IMPRS-TP), Munich, Germany.
Irina PapazovaDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Augsburg, Germany.
Esther DechantsreiterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany.
Sophia StoeckleinDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany.
Boris PapazovNeuroImaging Core Unit Munich (NICUM), Munich, Germany; Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany.
Axel ThielscherDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Frank PadbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany.
Daniel KeeserDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; NeuroImaging Core Unit Munich (NICUM), Munich, Germany; Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; Munich Center for Neurosciences (MCN) - Brain & Mind, 82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany. Electronic address: daniel.keeser@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DELMU Klinikum · DEBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Munich · DECopenhagen University Hospital · DKUniversity of Augsburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrefrontal cortex (PFC) regions are promising targets for therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been proposed as a novel intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and negative symptoms of schizophrenia (SCZ). However, the effects of tDCS vary inter-individually, and dose-response relationships have not been established. Stimulation parameters are often tested in healthy subjects and transferred to clinical populations. The current study investigates the variability of individual MRI-based electric fields (e-fields) of standard bifrontal tDCS across individual subjects and diagnoses.

methodThe study included 74 subjects, i.e. 25 patients with MDD, 24 patients with SCZ, and 25 healthy controls (HC). Individual e-fields of a common tDCS protocol (i.e. 2 mA stimulation intensity, bifrontal anode-F3/cathode-F4 montage) were modeled by two investigators using SimNIBS (2.0.1) based on structural MRI scans.

resultOn a whole-brain level, the average e-field strength was significantly reduced in MDD and SCZ compared to HC, but MDD and SCZ did not differ significantly. Regions of interest (ROI) analysis for PFC subregions showed reduced e-fields in Sallet areas 8B and 9 for MDD and SCZ compared to HC, whereas there was again no difference between MDD and SCZ. Within groups, we generally observed high inter-individual variability of e-field intensities at a higher percentile of voxels.

conclusionMRI-based e-field modeling revealed significant differences in e-field strengths between clinical and non-clinical populations in addition to a general inter-individual variability. These findings support the notion that dose-response relationships for tDCS cannot be simply transferred from healthy to clinical cohorts and need to be individually established for clinical groups. In this respect, MRI-based e-field modeling may serve as a proxy for individualized dosing.

Indexed as

Major Depressive DisorderTranscranial Direct Current StimulationBrainHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPrefrontal CortexDorsolateral prefrontal cortexElectric fieldMajor depressive disorderPrefrontal tDCSSchizophreniaStructural MRI

Identifiers

PMID35487132
PMCPMC9125784
OpenAlexW4224081020

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.