Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35878726›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2022

Inter-individual variability in current direction for common tDCS montages.

Carys Evans, Catharina Zich, Jenny S A Lee, Nick Ward, Sven Bestmann

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Carys EvansDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom. Electronic address: carys.evans@ucl.ac.uk.
Catharina ZichDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom; Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jenny S A LeeDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom.
Nick WardDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom.
Sven BestmannDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom; Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203147/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The direction of applied electric current relative to the cortical surface is a key determinant of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effects. Inter-individual differences in anatomy affect the consistency of current direction at a cortical target. However, the degree of this variability remains undetermined. Using current flow modelling (CFM), we quantified the inter-individual variability in tDCS current direction at a cortical target (left primary motor cortex, M1). Three montages targeting M1 using circular electrodes were compared: PA-tDCS directed current perpendicular to the central sulcus in a posterior-anterior direction relative to M1, ML-tDCS directed current parallel to the central sulcus in a medio-lateral direction, and conventional-tDCS applied electrodes over M1 and the contralateral forehead. In 50 healthy brain scans from the Human Connectome Project, we extracted current direction and intensity from the grey matter surface in the sulcal bank (M1

Indexed as

Cortical ExcitabilityMotor CortexTranscranial Direct Current StimulationElectrodesEvoked Potentials, MotorHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingBrain stimulationCurrent flow modellingInter-individual variabilityTranscranial electrical stimulation

Identifiers

PMID35878726
PMCPMC10510029

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.