ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Effect of optimized transcranial direct current stimulation on motor cortex activation in patients with sub-acute or chronic stroke: a study protocol for a single-blinded cross-over randomized control trial.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modulating food craving-related neural oscillations using tACS: study protocol for a randomized sham-controlled trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown positive but inconsistent results in stroke rehabilitation. This could be attributed to inter-individual variations in brain characteristics and stroke lesions, which limit the use of a single tDCS protocol for all post-stroke patients. Optimizing the electrode location in tDCS for each individual using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to generate three-dimensional computer models and calculate the electric field (E-field) induced by tDCS at a specific target point in the primary motor cortex may help reduce these inconsistencies. In stroke rehabilitation, locating the optimal position that generates a high E-field in a target area can influence motor recovery. Therefore, this study was designed to determine the effect of personalized tDCS electrode positions on hand-knob activation in post-stroke patients. Method: This is a crossover study with a sample size of 50 participants, who will be randomly assigned to one of six groups and will receive one session of either optimized-active, conventional-active, or sham tDCS, with 24 h between sessions. The tDCS parameters will be 1 mA (5 × 5 cm electrodes) for 20 min. The motor-evoked potential (MEP) will be recorded before and after each session over the target area (motor cortex hand-knob) and the MEP hotspot. The MEP amplitude at the target location will be the primary outcome. Discussion: We hypothesize that the optimized-active tDCS session would show a greater increase in MEP amplitude over the target area in patients with subacute and chronic stroke than conventional and sham tDCS sessions.
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.