Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36452171›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

A novel tDCS control condition using optimized anesthetic gel to block peripheral nerve input.

Silke Kerstens, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, Myles Mc Laughlin

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04577677 (Understanding the Neural Mechanisms Behind Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

NCT04577677 narecruitingnot on this map

Understanding the Neural Mechanisms Behind Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

TypeinterventionalSponsorKU LeuvenRan2020 to 2024Enrolled130ConditionstDCS MechanismsArmsbrain stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Silke KerstensResearch Group Experimental Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Department of Neurosciences, Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jean-Jacques Orban de XivryMovement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, The Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Myles Mc LaughlinResearch Group Experimental Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Department of Neurosciences, Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
VIB-KU Leuven Center for Brain & Disease Research · BEKU Leuven · BE

Funding

Elucidating the neural mechanisms behind transcranial direct current stimulationR01MH123508 · NIMH · KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN · PI MC LAUGHLIN, MYLES · 2020 to 2024
$1.1M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH123508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recent studies indicate that some transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effects may be caused by indirect stimulation of peripheral nerves in the scalp rather than the electric field in the brain. To address this, we developed a novel tDCS control condition in which peripheral input is blocked using topical anesthetics. We developed a compounded anesthetic gel containing benzocaine and lidocaine (BL10) that blocks peripheral input during tDCS. Methods: In a blinded randomized cross-over study of 18 healthy volunteers (M/F), we compared the gel's efficacy to EMLA and an inert placebo gel. Subjects used a visual analog scale (VAS) to rate the stimulation sensation in the scalp produced by 10 s of 2 mA tDCS every 2 min during 1 h. In an additional Results: Both the BL10 and EMLA gel, lowered the stimulation sensations compared to the placebo gel. The BL10 gel showed a tendency to work faster than the EMLA gel with reported sensations for the BL10 gel being lower than for EMLA for the first 30 min. The DC current caused a drastic increase in gel resistivity for the EMLA gel, while it did not affect gel resistivity for the BL10 and placebo gel, nor did it affect gel temperature. Conclusions: Topical anesthetics reduce stimulation sensations by blocking peripheral nerve input during tDCS. The BL10 gel tends to work faster and is more electrically stable than EMLA gel. Clinical trial registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with name "Understanding the Neural Mechanisms Behind tDCS" and number NCT04577677.

Indexed as

BL10peripheral nerve inputtDCS control conditiontopical anestheticstranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)transcranial electric stimulation (TES)

Identifiers

PMID36452171
PMCPMC9702085
OpenAlexW4309043131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.