Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36507323›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022

Short term effects of anodal cerebellar vs. anodal cerebral transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke patients, a randomized control trial.

Qurat-Ul-Ain, Zafran Ahmad, Summaiya Ishtiaq, Saad Ilyas, Irum Shahid, Iqbal Tariq, Arshad Nawaz Malik, Tian Liu, Jue Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Qurat-Ul-AinThe Key Laboratory of Biomedical Information Engineering of Ministry of Education, Institute of Health and Rehabilitation Science, School of Life Science and Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Zafran AhmadSchool of Economics and Management, Yunnan University, Kunming, China.
Summaiya IshtiaqDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Saad IlyasFaculty of Computing, Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Irum ShahidInstitute of Physical Medical and Rehabilitation, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Iqbal TariqFaculty of Rehabilitation and Allied Health Sciences, Riphah College of Rehabilitation and Allied Health Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Arshad Nawaz MalikFaculty of Rehabilitation and Allied Health Sciences, Riphah College of Rehabilitation and Allied Health Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Tian LiuThe Key Laboratory of Biomedical Information Engineering of Ministry of Education, Institute of Health and Rehabilitation Science, School of Life Science and Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Jue WangThe Key Laboratory of Biomedical Information Engineering of Ministry of Education, Institute of Health and Rehabilitation Science, School of Life Science and Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Balance and gait impairments are major motor deficits in stroke patients that require intensive neuro-rehabilitation. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation is a neuro-modulatory technique recently used in stroke patients for balance and gait improvement. Majority of studies focusing on tDCS have assessed its effects on cerebral motor cortex and more recently cerebellum as well but to our best knowledge the comparison of stimulating these two regions in stroke patients is not investigated so far. Objective: The current study aimed to compare the effect of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on cerebellar and cerebral motor cortex M1 in stroke patients. Materials and methods: This double-blinded, parallel, randomized, sham controlled trial included 66 patients with a first-ever ischemic stroke were recruited into three groups; Cerebellar stimulation group (CbSG), M1 Stimulation Group (MSG), and Sham stimulation group (SSG). A total of three sessions of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation were given on consecutive days in addition to non-immersive virtual reality using Xbox 360 with kinect. Anodal tDCS with an intensity of 2 mA was applied for a duration of 20 min. Primary outcome measures berg balance scale (BBS), timed up and go test (TUG), BESTest Balance Evaluation-Systems Test (BESTest) and secondary outcomes measures montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), mini mental state examination (MMSE), Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT), twenty five feet walk test (25FWT), six minute walk test (6MWT), and tDCS Adverse Effects was assessed before initiation of treatment (T0) and at the end of third session of stimulation (T1). Results: The results of between group's analysis using mean difference showed a significant difference with Conclusion: Findings of the study suggest anodal tDCS stimulation of the cerebellum and cerebral motor cortex both improves gait, balance and risk of fall in stroke patients. However, both stimulation sites do not induce any notable improvement in cognitive function. Effects of both stimulation sites have similar effects on mobility in stroke patients.

Indexed as

balancecerebellar transcranial direct current stimulationcerebral transcranial direct current stimulationcognitiongaitstroke

Identifiers

PMID36507323
PMCPMC9730515

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.