ArticleEpilepsia open2025
Transcranial direct current stimulation treatment reduces, while repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment increases electroencephalography spike rates with refractory occipital lobe epilepsy: A case study.
Article in Epilepsia open, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
Abstract
objectiveNon-invasive brain stimulation has been suggested as an alternative/supplementary treatment for focal, refractory epilepsy. However, there are only a few studies and even fewer that directly compared transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).
methodsWe report the case of a 20-year-old female patient with persistent epileptiform discharges in the left occipital region consistent with focal status epilepticus. The patient received 20 min sessions of tDCS (2 mA) for five consecutive days, with the cathode over the left occipital region and the anode over the contralateral prefrontal lobe. After initial improvement, the patient's condition worsened again, and thus it was decided to treat her with rTMS (1 Hz, 1800 pulses), also for five consecutive days. Before and after each treatment, spike frequency was recorded with electroencephalography (EEG).
resultsThere was a significant decrease in spike frequency from pre- to post-tDCS treatment. Depending on the type of data analysis, there was either a near significant (p = 0.058, d = 0.51) or a significant (p < 0.001, d = 1.13) increase from pre- to post-rTMS treatment, and the patient reported a worsening of symptoms. SIGNIFICANCE: The study adds to a growing body of evidence on non-invasive brain stimulation treatments in focal refractory epilepsy. On the one hand, we corroborate its usefulness. On the other hand, we highlight that non-invasive brain stimulation might inadvertently worsen symptoms. Future research needs to determine which method, with which parameters, for which patient is beneficial (and detrimental). PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The study details the case of a patient suffering from epilepsy, located in the occipital region of the brain, who did not respond to several antiseizure medications. We treated with both transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. The transcranial direct current stimulation treatment resulted in a significant decrease in EEG spikes, yet the patient's condition worsened again after 2 weeks. We therefore used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment, which, in fact, resulted in an increase in spike frequency. The results demonstrate both the potential benefits and risks of non-invasive brain stimulation as treatment in drug-resistant epilepsy.
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.