ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor function among people with stroke: evidence mapping.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of transcranial electrical stimulation combined with dual-task training in stroke, mild cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- The recovery of lower limb function in stroke patients: which sequence of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with lower limb rehabilitation robot is most effective-A randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- The effects of combining anodal transcranial direct current stimulation with robot-assisted gait training on lower limb motor function and the motor cortex regulation of stroke patients.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- A wearable sensor-based kinematic dataset collected under standardized rehabilitation tasks from 120 post-stroke patients.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Modern Technologies Supporting Motor Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Narrative 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo present, organize, and assess the methodological quality of the current research related to tDCS on motor function after a stroke and to identify gaps and clinical implications using an evidence mapping approach.
methodsSix electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PEDro), gray literature, and reference lists of articles were searched from inception until October 2023. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and PEDro scale were used to assess the methodology quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
resultsA total of 172 articles met the inclusion criteria from 5759 records, including 46 SRs and 126 RCTs. Related studies came from 29 countries around the world, and China has performed the most, with 12 SRs and 21 RCTs. More than half of SRs (65.22%) were evaluated with low or critically low quality, while 78.58% of RCTs have shown excellent or good quality. A total of 26 SRs and 93 RCTs have reported outcomes on upper limb motor function with kinds of tDCS, and 15 SRs and 44 RCTs have focused on lower extremity function. Studies with safety concerns have reported no or mild adverse events.
conclusionsThis study systematically identified gaps and indicated that tDCS is a kind of potential and safe intervention. Given potential concerns on the clinical application, more high-quality research with large sample size and kinds of objectives is needed in the future.
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.