Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36247787›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022

Behavioral effects in disorders of consciousness following transcranial direct current stimulation: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Zeyu Xu, Ruizhe Zheng, Tiantong Xia, Zengxin Qi, Di Zang, Zhe Wang, Xuehai Wu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Zeyu XuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Medical College, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ruizhe ZhengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Medical College, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Tiantong XiaBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Zengxin QiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Medical College, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Di ZangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Medical College, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zhe WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Medical College, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xuehai WuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Medical College, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Fudan University · CNHuashan Hospital · CNJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DoC), recent evidence suggests that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can be a promising intervention for them. However, there has been little agreement on the treatment effect and the optimal treatment strategy for the tDCS in patients with DoC. Objective: In this meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD), we assess whether tDCS could improve DoC patients' behavioral performance. We also determine whether these treatment effects could be modified by patient characteristics or tDCS protocol. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 7 April 2022 using the terms "persistent vegetative state," "minimally conscious state," "disorder of consciousness," or "unresponsive wakefulness syndrome," and "transcranial direct current stimulation" to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in English-language publications. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported pre- and post-tDCS Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) scores. From the included studies, patients who had incomplete data were excluded. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the treatment effect of the tDCS compared with sham control. Additionally, various subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether specific patient characteristics could modify the treatment effect and to find out the optimal tDCS protocol. Results: We identified 145 papers, but eventually eight trials (including 181 patients) were included in the analysis, and one individual data were excluded because of incomplete data. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a mean difference change in the CRS-R score of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.17-1.61) between tDCS and sham-control, favoring tDCS. The subgroup analysis showed that patients who were male or with a minimally conscious state (MCS) diagnosis were associated with a greater improvement in CRS-R score. We also found that patients who underwent five or more sessions of tDCS protocol had a better treatment effect than just one session. Conclusion: The result shows that tDCS can improve the behavioral performance of DoC patients. The heterogeneity of the treatment effect existed within the patients' baseline conditions and the stimulation protocol. More explorative studies on the optimal tDCS protocol and the most beneficial patient group based on the mechanism of tDCS are required in the future. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022331241.

Indexed as

Disorders of Consciousness (DoC)individual patient data (IPD)meta-analysisminimally conscious state (MCS)persistent vegetative state (PVS)transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

Identifiers

PMID36247787
PMCPMC9558708
OpenAlexW4297980965

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.