Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36036644›Full record

Trial reportJournal of rehabilitation medicine2022

Effects of Different Montages of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Haemodynamic Responses and Motor Performance in Acute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Wanalee Klomjai, Benchaporn Aneksan, Songkram Chotik-Anuchit, Pentida Jitkaew, Kasina Chaichanudomsuk, Pagamas Piriyaprasarth, Roongtiwa Vachalathiti, Yongchai Nilanon, Vimonwan Hiengkaew

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Wanalee KlomjaiFaculty of Physical Therapy; Neuro Electrical Stimulation Laboratory (NeuE Lab), Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom. wanalee.klo@mahidol.edu.
Benchaporn AneksanFaculty of Physical Therapy; Neuro Electrical Stimulation Laboratory (NeuE Lab), Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom.
Songkram Chotik-AnuchitDepartment of Medicine; Siriraj Stroke Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pentida JitkaewFaculty of Physical Therapy; Neuro Electrical Stimulation Laboratory (NeuE Lab), Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom.
Kasina ChaichanudomsukFaculty of Physical Therapy; Neuro Electrical Stimulation Laboratory (NeuE Lab), Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom.
Pagamas PiriyaprasarthFaculty of Physical Therapy; Neuro Electrical Stimulation Laboratory (NeuE Lab), Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom.
Roongtiwa VachalathitiFaculty of Physical Therapy.
Yongchai NilanonDepartment of Medicine; Siriraj Stroke Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Vimonwan HiengkaewFaculty of Physical Therapy.
American Physical Therapy Association · USMahidol University · THFaculty (United Kingdom) · GBSiriraj Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown positive results in neurorehabilitation. However, there is limited evidence on its use in acute stroke, and unclear evidence regarding the best tDCS montage (anodal-, cathodal-, or dualtDCS) for stroke recovery. This study investigated the effects of these montages combined with physical therapy on haemodynamic response and motor performance.

methodsEighty-two eligible acute stroke participants were allocated randomly into anodal, cathodal, dual, and sham groups. They received 5 consecutive sessions of tDCS combined with physical therapy for 5 days. Cerebral mean blood flow velocity (MFV) and motor outcomes were assessed pre and post-intervention and at a 1-month follow-up.

resultsNone of the groups showed significant changes in the MFV in the lesioned or non-lesioned hemispheres immediately post-intervention or at a 1-month follow-up. For motor performance, all outcomes improved over time for all groups; between-group comparisons showed that the dual-tDCS group had significantly greater improvement than the other groups for most of the lower-limb performance measures. All 5-day tDCS montages were safe.

conclusionMFV was not modulated following active or sham groups. However, dual-tDCS was more efficient in improving motor performance than other groups, especially for lower-limb performance, with after-effects lasting at least 1 month.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationDouble-Blind MethodHemodynamicsHumans

Identifiers

PMID36036644
PMCPMC9480582
OpenAlexW4293446112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.