Trial reportCerebellum (London, England)2023
M1 and Cerebellar tDCS for MSA-C: a Double-Blind, Randomized, Sham-Controlled, Crossover Study.
Trial report in Cerebellum (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Instrumental balance assessment in Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism. A systematic review with critical appraisal of clinical applications and quality of reporting.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Degenerative Cerebellar Ataxia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024Pooled it
- Posture enhancement with cerebellum transcranial electrical stimulation: a systematic review of current methods and findings.Experimental brain research · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of noninvasive brain stimulation for patients with cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of neurology · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Degenerative Ataxia. A Sham-Controlled Clinical and Quantitative Analysis.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Transcranial alternating current stimulation for treating spinocerebellar ataxia type 3: A randomized controlled trial.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Trial
- Clinical neurophysiology in the treatment of movement disorders: IFCN handbook chapter.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Review
- The Role of Non-Invasive Brain Modulation in Identifying Disease Biomarkers for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Purposes in Parkinsonism.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Acute Effect of Single-Session Cerebellar Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Static and Dynamic Balance in Healthy Volunteers.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation for degenerative cerebellar ataxia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for cerebellar-dominant multiple-system atrophy (MSA-C) is not well elucidated, yet. This study aimed to investigate the effect of tDCS on the primary motor cortex (M1) and cerebellum in patients with MSA-C. We recruited probable MSA-C patients and performed three single sessions of tDCS at each visit in random order (M1, cerebellum or sham). Cerebellar ataxia was evaluated with the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and objective gait and static balance analyses both before and after each stimulation session. Additionally, we also evaluated the factors related with objective improvement from each stimulation. Sixteen participants were enrolled, and one dropped out after 2 sessions of stimulation due to consent withdrawal. The gait velocity, step time and single support time all significantly improved after the M1 and cerebellar tDCS treatment compared with the sham stimulation while there was no difference in the improvement of ICARS and posturography results among 3 stimulations. In terms of the related factors with improvement of gait velocity, the disease duration, baseline gait speed and single support times were correlated after M1 stimulation, while a higher ICARS score and baseline gait speed in cerebellar stimulation. There were no adverse effects reported after the tDCS sessions. Our results demonstrated that both M1 and cerebellar tDCS demonstrated benefits for MSA-C patients without significant complications. Considering the different related factors with improvement at each stimulation, the mechanism would be different between M1 and cerebellar stimulations.
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.