Trial reportScientific reports2024
Electric field simulation and appropriate electrode positioning for optimized transcranial direct current stimulation of stroke patients: an in Silico model.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on aphasia rehabilitation.European stroke journal · 2025Guideline
- Advancing stroke diagnosis and management through nuclear medicine: a systematic review of clinical trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- MRI-guided personalized tDCS planning for target engagement of the swallowing motor cortex after stroke: a finite-element modeling study.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Methods of Computational Modelling in Studies of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Adults to Inform Protocols for Tinnitus Treatment: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Personalized Language Training and Bi-Hemispheric tDCS Improve Language Connectivity in Chronic Aphasia: A fMRI Case Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Neuroplastic effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS): from mechanisms to clinical trials.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Optimising transcranial direct current stimulation application for the enhancement of exercise performance: a review.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Individuals with psychosis receive less electric field strength during transcranial direct current stimulation compared to healthy controls.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- A Literature Review on Optimal Stimulation Parameters of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Motor Recovery After Stroke.Brain & NeuroRehabilitation · 2024Review
- The Optimized Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With Simulation Using MRI.Brain & NeuroRehabilitation · 2024Review
- Simulating tDCS electrode placement to stimulate both M1 and SMA enhances motor performance and modulates cortical excitability depending on current flow direction.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has benefits for motor rehabilitation in stroke patients, but its clinical application is limited due to inter-individual heterogeneous effects. Recently, optimized tDCS that considers individual brain structure has been proposed, but the utility thereof has not been studied in detail. We explored whether optimized tDCS provides unique electrode positions for each patient and creates a higher target electric field than the conventional approach. A comparative within-subject simulation study was conducted using data collected for a randomized controlled study evaluating the effect of optimized tDCS on upper extremity function in stroke patients. Using Neurophet tES LAB 3.0 software, individual brain models were created based on magnetic resonance images and tDCS simulations were performed for each of the conventional and optimized configurations. A comparison of electrode positions between conventional tDCS and optimized tDCS was quantified by calculation of Euclidean distances. A total of 21 stroke patients were studied. Optimized tDCS produced a higher electric field in the hand motor region than conventional tDCS, with an average improvement of 20% and a maximum of 52%. The electrode montage for optimized tDCS was unique to each patient and exhibited various configurations that differed from electrode placement of conventional tDCS. Optimized tDCS afforded a higher electric field in the target of a stroke patient compared to conventional tDCS, which was made possible by appropriately positioning the electrodes. Our findings may encourage further trials on optimized tDCS for motor rehabilitation after stroke.
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.