Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36084558›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2022

Addressing the inconsistent electric fields of tDCS by using patient-tailored configurations in chronic stroke: Implications for treatment.

Joris van der Cruijsen, Renée F Dooren, Alfred C Schouten, Thom F Oostendorp, Maarten A Frens, Gerard M Ribbers, Frans C T van der Helm, Gert Kwakkel, Ruud W Selles, 4D EEG consortium

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Joris van der CruijsenErasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Delft University of Technology, dept. of Biomechanical Engineering, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands; Radboud University Medical Center, dept. of Rehabilitation, Reinier Postlaan 2, 6525 GC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: joris.vandercruijsen@radboudumc.nl.
Renée F DoorenErasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Delft University of Technology, dept. of Biomechanical Engineering, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Alfred C SchoutenDelft University of Technology, dept. of Biomechanical Engineering, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands; University of Twente, dept. of Biomechanical Engineering, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Thom F OostendorpDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Kapittelweg 29, 6525 EN, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maarten A FrensErasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerard M RibbersErasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Rijndam Rehabilitation, Westersingel 300, 3015 LJ, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Frans C T van der HelmDelft University of Technology, dept. of Biomechanical Engineering, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands; Northwestern University of Chicago, dept. of Physical Therapy and Movement Sciences, 420 E Superior St, Chicago, IL 60611, United States.
Gert KwakkelNorthwestern University of Chicago, dept. of Physical Therapy and Movement Sciences, 420 E Superior St, Chicago, IL 60611, United States; Amsterdam University Medical Centre, dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, De Boelelaan 1117, 1118, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ruud W SellesErasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
4D EEG consortium
Erasmus MC · NLNorthwestern University · USCodarts Rotterdam · NLDelft University of Technology · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising tool to improve and speed up motor rehabilitation after stroke, but inconsistent clinical effects refrain tDCS from clinical implementation. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the need for individualized tDCS configurations in stroke, considering interindividual variability in brain anatomy and motor function representation. We simulated tDCS in individualized MRI-based finite element head models of 21 chronic stroke subjects and 10 healthy age-matched controls. An anatomy-based stimulation target, i.e. the motor hand knob, was identified with MRI, whereas a motor function-based stimulation target was identified with EEG. For each subject, we simulated conventional anodal tDCS electrode configurations and optimized electrode configurations to maximize stimulation strength within the anatomical and functional target. The normal component of the electric field was extracted and compared between subjects with stroke and healthy, age-matched controls, for both targets, during conventional and optimized tDCS. Electrical field strength was significantly lower, more variable and more frequently in opposite polarity for subjects with stroke compared to healthy age-matched subjects, both for the anatomical and functional target with conventional, i.e. non-individualized, electrode configurations. Optimized, i.e. individualized, electrode configurations increased the electrical field strength in the anatomical and functional target for subjects with stroke but did not reach the same levels as in healthy subjects. Considering individual brain structure and motor function is crucial for applying tDCS in subjects with stroke. Lack of individualized tDCS configurations in subjects with stroke results in lower electric fields in stimulation targets, which may partially explain the inconsistent clinical effects of tDCS in stroke trials.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationBrainHeadHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingEEGSource localizationStroketDCSVolume conduction models

Identifiers

PMID36084558
PMCPMC9465435
OpenAlexW4293491657

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.