ArticleIranian journal of child neurology2024
The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on M1 with and without Mirror Visual Feedback on Range of Motion and Hand Grip Strength of the Affected Upper Limb in Children with Spastic Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy.
Article in Iranian journal of child neurology, 2024. 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.
- Effectiveness of Electrical Stimulation on Upper Limb Function in Children and Young People with Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigated the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) before and during the mirror visual feedback (MVF) on hand grip strength (HGS) and range of motion of the affected hand in children with spastic hemiplegia cerebral palsy (SHCP). Materials & Methods: Twelve children with SHCP participated in this randomized, crossover, and double-blind study. They were randomly exposed to one of four intervention conditions, including 1) a-tDCS-offline, 2) s-tDCS-offline, 3) a-tDCS-online, and 4) s-tDCS-online, with a one-week interval. Participants in the online condition received either anodal or sham tDCS during MVF, while those in the offline condition received tDCS before performing MVF. The tDCS was applied over the M1 area of the affected hemisphere for 20 minutes at 1 mA intensity. The HGS and range of motion of the wrist and elbow (ROM-W and ROM-E) of the affected limb were measured before (pre) and immediately after (post) interventions in each session. Results: The results showed that the HGS was significantly higher under a-tDCS-offline ( Conclusion: The results might have practical implications regarding the timing of the application of tDCS in conjunction with MVF in children with SHCP.
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.