SynthesisCerebellum (London, England)2023
Effects of Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Patients with Stroke: a Systematic Review.
Synthesis 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.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Effects of a Computerized Naming Intervention Combined with Cerebellar tDCS in Cantonese-Speaking Individuals with Aphasia.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- The Cerebellar Connectome Disruptions in Ischemic Stroke.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Integration Analysis of miRNA Circulating Expression Following Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Patients with Ischemic Stroke.Biochemical genetics · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation in Primary Progressive Aphasia Treatment: A Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Transcranial direct current stimulation in individuals with severe traumatic brain injury in the subacute phase: a case series.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Effects of Cerebellar Non-Invasive Stimulation on Neurorehabilitation in Stroke Patients: An Updated Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Reorganization of Dynamic Network in Stroke Patients and Its Potential for Predicting Motor Recovery.Neural plasticity · 2024Article
- Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Neurorehabilitation in Post-Stroke Patients.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation on rehabilitation of upper limb motor function after stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe cerebellum is involved in regulating motor, affective, and cognitive processes. It is a promising target for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) intervention in stroke.
objectivesTo review the current evidence for cerebellar tDCS (ctDCS) in stroke, its problems, and its future directions.
methodsWe searched the Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases. Eligible studies were identified after a systematic literature review of the effects of ctDCS in stroke patients. The changes in assessment scale scores and objective indicators after stimulation were reviewed.
resultsEleven studies were included in the systematic review, comprising 169 stroke patients. Current evidence suggests that anode tDCS on the right cerebellar hemisphere does not appear to enhance language processing in stroke patients. Compared with the sham group, stroke patients showed a significant improvement in the verb generation task after cathodal ctDCS stimulation. However, with regard to naming, two studies came to the opposite conclusion. The contralesional anodal ctDCS is expected to improve standing balance but not motor learning in stroke patients. The bipolar bilateral ctDCS protocol to target dentate nuclei (PO10h and PO9h) had a positive effect on standing balance, goal-directed weight shifting, and postural control in stroke patients.
conclusionsctDCS appears to improve poststroke language and motor dysfunction (particularly gait). However, the evidence for these results was insufficient, and the quality of the relevant studies was low. ctDCS stimulation parameters and individual factors of participants may affect the therapeutic effect of ctDCS. Researchers need to take a more regulated approach in the future to conduct studies with large sample sizes. Overall, ctDCS remains a promising stroke intervention technique that could be used in the future.
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.