ArticleHeliyon2024
Exploring the Differential Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Comparative Analysis of Motor Cortex and Cerebellar Stimulation.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Provide Neuroprotection and Enhance Cerebral Blood Flow in Stroke: A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Improving Balance in Healthy Older Adults and Older Adults with Stroke: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Effects of Cerebellar Non-Invasive Stimulation on Neurorehabilitation in Stroke Patients: An Updated Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 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
10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique. Constant electric current is passed through the patient's scalp with the aim of modulating cortical excitability. Stroke is a cerebrovascular disease characterized by hemorrhage or cerebral ischemia. This systematic review and meta-analysis are aimed at comparing the efficacy of motor cortex stimulation with that of cerebellar stimulation by using transcranial direct current stimulation. Method: Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (Pedro) databases were searched for studies. The extracted qualitative data was synthesized systematically. Cochrane RevMan software was used to conduct a meta-analysis of quantitative data. The fixed effects mean difference of the collected data was calculated at a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the changes in balance and side effects. Results: This research included 10 articles with seven studies assessing changes in balance (outcome measured in CoP and FMA scores) and side effects (tingling and itching were the most prevalent). There was no significant difference between the efficacy levels of m1-tDCS versus ctDCS (P = 0.18), m1-tDCS versus sham (P = 0.92), and ctDCS versus sham (P = 0.19). Itching and tingling sensation were the most common and were significantly prevalent in sham interventions (P < 0.00001). Conclusion: We found that motor cortex and cerebellar stimulations are both effective in improving motor function in stroke patients. There are no adverse effects to using the interventions besides mild itching and tingling experienced during the stimulation.
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.