Trial reportNeural plasticity2024
Clinical Comparison between HD-tDCS and tDCS for Improving Upper Limb Motor Function: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Neural plasticity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with different rehabilitation interventions on motor function in people suffering from stroke-related symptoms: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Enhancing golf swing performance through M1-targeted transcranial direct current stimulation: a double-blind, randomized crossover study.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- A review on the reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stroke is a common and frequently occurring disease among middle-aged and elderly people, with approximately 55%-75% of patients remaining with upper limb dysfunction. How to promote the recovery of motor function at an early stage is crucial to the life of the patient. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) functional area in poststroke patients in the subacute phase is more effective in improving upper limb function than conventional tDCS. Methods: This randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial included 69 patients with subcortical stroke. They were randomly divided into the HD-tDCS, anodal tDCS (a-tDCS), and sham groups. Each group received 20 sessions of stimulation. The patients were assessed using the Action Research Arm Test, Fugl-Meyer score for upper extremities, Motor Function Assessment Scale, and modified Barthel index (MBI) pretreatment and posttreatment. Results: The intragroup comparison scores improved after 4 weeks of treatment. The HD-tDCS group showed a slightly greater, but nonsignificant improvement as compared to a-tDCS group in terms of mean change observed in function of trained items. The MBI score of the HD-tDCS group was maintained up to 8 weeks of follow-up and was higher than that in the a-tDCS group. Conclusion: Both HD-tDCS and a-tDCS can improve upper limb motor function and daily activities of poststroke patients in the subacute stage. This trial is registered with ChiCTR2000031314.
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.