ReviewBiomedicines2023
Modeling Electric Fields in Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation: A Clinical Perspective.
Review in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of transcutaneous spinal stimulation with gait training on walking-related outcomes in stroke survivors: a systematic review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of non-invasive spinal cord stimulation in unmedicated adults with major depressive disorder: a pilot randomized controlled trial and induced current flow pattern.Molecular psychiatry · 2024Trial
- Pushing athletic performance boundaries with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation: an exploratory, pilot, randomized controlled study on strength and inflammation in elite weightlifters.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation on Cognitive and Psychological Outcomes in Multiple Sclerosis: A Preliminary Case Series.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Neural mechanisms underlying leg muscle responses during cervical transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation.Journal of neural engineering · 2026Article
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Direct Current Stimulation over the Primary Motor Cortex, Cerebellum, and Spinal Cord to Modulate Balance Performance: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Personalized strategies of neurostimulation: from static biomarkers to dynamic closed-loop assessment of neural function.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical findings suggest that transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can modulate ascending sensitive, descending corticospinal, and segmental pathways in the spinal cord (SC). However, several aspects of the stimulation have not been completely understood, and realistic computational models based on MRI are the gold standard to predict the interaction between tsDCS-induced electric fields and anatomy. Here, we review the electric fields distribution in the SC during tsDCS as predicted by MRI-based realistic models, compare such knowledge with clinical findings, and define the role of computational knowledge in optimizing tsDCS protocols. tsDCS-induced electric fields are predicted to be safe and induce both transient and neuroplastic changes. This could support the possibility to explore new clinical applications, such as spinal cord injury. For the most applied protocol (2-3 mA for 20-30 min, active electrode over T10-T12 and the reference on the right shoulder), similar electric field intensities are generated in both ventral and dorsal horns of the SC at the same height. This was confirmed by human studies, in which both motor and sensitive effects were found. Lastly, electric fields are strongly dependent on anatomy and electrodes' placement. Regardless of the montage, inter-individual hotspots of higher values of electric fields were predicted, which could change when the subjects move from a position to another (e.g., from the supine to the lateral position). These characteristics underlines the need for individualized and patient-tailored MRI-based computational models to optimize the stimulation protocol. A detailed modeling approach of the electric field distribution might contribute to optimizing stimulation protocols, tailoring electrodes' configuration, intensities, and duration to the clinical outcome.
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.