Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38476746›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2024

Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation to the ipsilesional motor cortex in subacute stroke (NETS): a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

NETS Trial Collaboration Group

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT00909714 nacompletednot on this map

Neuroregeneration Enhanced by TDCS in Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfRan2009 to 2021Enrolled119ConditionsStrokeArmsDC-Stimulator to apply tDCS, DC-Stimulator to apply Sham tDCS
NCT06999876 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Combined Transcranial Pulse Current Stimulation (tPCS) and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) on Lower Limb Motor Function in Subacute to Chronic Stroke Patients With Hemiplegia: A Double-blind, Sham-controlled, Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational University Health System, SingaporeRan2025 to 2026Enrolled90ConditionsStroke Patients With Hemiplegia or Hemiparesis in the Subacute StageArmsThe AscenZ-VIII Stimulator (Investigational Medical Device)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Transcranial direct current stimulation is safe and feasible in hyperacute ischemic stroke (DICAST-SF trial).Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

1 author.

NETS Trial Collaboration Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Each year, five million people are left disabled after stroke. Upper-extremity (UE) dysfunction is a leading problem. Neuroplasticity can be enhanced by non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) but evidence from large, randomized multicenter trials is lacking. We aimed at demonstrating efficacy of NIBS to enhance motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Methods: We randomly assigned patients to receive anodal transcranial direct current (tDCS, 1 mA, 20 min) or placebo stimulation ('control') over the primary motor cortex of the lesioned hemisphere in addition to standardized rehabilitative training over ten days in the subacute phase after stroke. The original study was planned to enrol 250 but, following a blinded interim analysis, ended with 123 participants. The primary outcome parameter was UE impairment, measured by UE-Fugl-Meyer-Assessment (UEFMA), one to seven days after the end of the treatment intervention (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00909714). Findings: From 2009 to 2019, 123 patients were included, with 119 entering intention-to-treat analysis (ITT). The control group (N = 61) improved 8.9 (SD 7.7) UEFMA points, the tDCS group (N = 58) improved 9.0 (8.8) points. ITT was neutral with respect to the primary efficacy endpoint (p = 0.820). We found no difference in UEFMA change between active tDCS and control. The safety profile of tDCS was favorable. In particular, there were no seizures. Interpretation: In patients with ischemic stroke, anodal tDCS applied to the motor cortex of the lesioned hemisphere over 10 days in the subacute phase was safe but did not improve the recovery of upper extremity function compared with placebo stimulation. Funding: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (GE 844/4-1).

Indexed as

Brain stimulationClinical trialNeuroplasticityNeurorehabilitationRecoveryStroke

Identifiers

PMID38476746
PMCPMC10928272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.