SynthesisJournal of neurology2022
Transcranial direct current stimulation in neglect rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive brain stimulation effectively improves post-stroke sensory impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2023Pooled it
- Unilateral Spatial Neglect After Stroke: A Pragmatic Approach to Assessment and Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Chinese neurologists toward transcranial direct current stimulation.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Combining Visual Feedback and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Lower Limb Motor Rehabilitation in Stroke: A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Neurorehabilitation of Visual Neglect: A Narrative Review of Approaches from A.R. Luria to Modern Clinical Protocols.Consortium psychiatricum · 2025Review
- Transcranial direct current stimulation in individuals with severe traumatic brain injury in the subacute phase: a case series.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Association between transcranial direct current stimulation and disability and quality of life in individuals with Parkinsonism: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Ameliorate Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Research Hotspots and Frontiers of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Stroke: A Bibliometric Analysis.Brain sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemispatial neglect is one of the most frequent attention disorders after stroke. The presence of neglect is associated with longer hospital stays, extended rehabilitation periods, and poorer functional recovery. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a new technique with promising results in neglect rehabilitation; therefore, the objective of this systematic review, performed following the PRISMA guidelines, is to evaluate the effectiveness of tDCS on neglect recovery after stroke. The search was done in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and BioMed Central databases. A total of 311 articles were found; only 11 met the inclusion criteria, including 152 post-stroke patients in total. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed for all the studies, and methodological characteristics of the studies, sample sizes, methods, main results, and other relevant data were extracted. tDCS intervention ranged from one to twenty sessions distributed in 1 day to 4 weeks, with intensity ranged from 1 to 2 mA. We found moderate evidence for the efficacy of tDCS in the rehabilitation of hemispatial neglect after a stroke, being more effective in combination with other interventions. Nonetheless, the limited number of studies and some studies' design characteristics makes it risky to draw categorical conclusions. Since scientific evidence is still scarce, further research is needed to determine the advantage of this treatment in acute, sub-acute and chronic stroke patients. Future studies should include larger samples, longer follow-ups, and broader neurophysiological assessments, with the final aim of establishing the appropriate use of tDCS as an adjuvant intervention in neurorehabilitation settings.
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.