Trial reportThe Lancet. Neurology2025
Safety and efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in addition to constraint-induced movement therapy for post-stroke motor recovery (TRANSPORT2): a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled triple-blind trial.
Trial report in The Lancet. Neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03826030 (TRANScranial Direct Current Stimulation for POst-stroke Motor Recovery - a Phase II sTudy), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 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.
TRANScranial Direct Current Stimulation for POst-stroke Motor Recovery - a Phase II sTudy (TRANSPORT 2)
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spinal cord stimulation for upper limb motor function in people with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis: a feasibility trial.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Transcranial direct current stimulation is safe and feasible in hyperacute ischemic stroke (DICAST-SF trial).Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Trial
- tDCS synchronous robotic training on lower-limb with post-stroke hemiplegia: a comparative study between synchronous and sequential group.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Review
- Correlation of Motor-Task Related Brain Activation Changes With Motor Performance Changes Induced by Constraint-Induced Therapy After Stroke.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Stroke Motor Recovery: What the TRANSPORT2 Trial Taught Us.Stroke · 2026Review
- The potential role of transcranial direct current stimulation in experimental ischemic stroke in adult male albino rats.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Harnessing Neuroplasticity: The Role of Priming in Enhancing Post Stroke Motor Function.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2026Review
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Rehabilitation paired with vagus nerve stimulation for motor function of chronic ischemic stroke patients in China: Study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (Repair Study).Neuroprotection (Chichester, England) · 2026Article
- Most Effective Interventions for Improving Upper Extremity Function in Patients with Hemiparesis.Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Non-invasive brain stimulation: current and future applications in neurology.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Review
- Article
- Rethinking neuromodulation in stroke: lessons from TRANSPORT2 - Authors' reply.The Lancet. Neurology · 2025Article
- Accelerometry and the Capacity-Performance Gap: Case Series Report in Upper-Extremity Motor Impairment Assessment Post-Stroke.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- TOPSS: TOlerability of transcranial direct current stimulation in Pediatric Stroke Survivors.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Quantitative EEG Metrics for Determining HD-tDCS Induced Alteration of Brain Activity in Stroke Rehabilitation.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMotor impairments contribute substantially to long-term disability following stroke. Studies of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), combined with various rehabilitation therapies, have shown promising results in reducing motor impairment. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of three doses of tDCS in combination with modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) in people who have had their first ischaemic stroke in the preceding 1-6 months.
methodsWe conducted a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, triple-blind, sham-controlled study with a blinded centrally scored primary outcome. The trial was conducted at 15 medical centres in the USA. Eligible participants were enrolled between 1 month and 6 months after their first ischaemic stroke. Inclusion criteria required participants to have a persistent motor deficit, defined as a Fugl-Meyer Upper-Extremity (FM-UE) score of 54 or lower (out of 66), and two consecutive baseline visits (separated by 7-14 days) with an absolute difference of 2 or fewer points on the FM-UE scale. Participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups by an adaptive randomisation algorithm hosted on the TRANSPORT2 WebDCU study website. Participants received either sham, 2 mA, or 4 mA of bi-hemispheric tDCS for the first 30 min and mCIMT with 120 min of active therapy time per session, administered over ten sessions during a 2-week period. The primary endpoint was the change in FM-UE score from baseline to day 15, which was analysed in all participants who have data both at baseline and post-baseline (modified intention-to-treat group). Safety outcomes were analysed in all participants. TRANSPORT2 is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03826030) and its status is completed.
findings129 participants were recruited between Sept 9, 2019, and June 14, 2024, and 43 participants were randomly assigned to each group. 54 (42%) of 129 participants were female, and 69 (53%) were White. Two participants in the sham plus mCIMT group withdrew consent before the day 15 assessment and were excluded from the primary analysis. The median baseline FM-UE score was 39·0 (IQR 30·0-46·0) in the sham plus mCIMT group, 39·0 (27·0-48·0) in the 2 mA plus mCIMT group, and 40·0 (27·0-48·0) in the 4 mA plus mCIMT group. For the primary outcome, the adjusted mean change from baseline to day 15 in FM-UE was 4·91 (3·00-6·82) for sham plus mCIMT, 3·87 (2·00-5·74) for 2 mA plus mCIMT, and 5·53 (3·64-7·42) for 4 mA plus mCIMT (p=0·39). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any group and no deaths were reported.
interpretationtDCS at doses of 2 mA or 4 mA, in addition to mCIMT, did not lead to further reduction in motor impairment in patients 1-6 months after stroke, but it was safe, well tolerated, and feasible for clinical practice. tDCS at higher doses (ie, >4 mA) might be a consideration for future trials in addition to balancing known covariates affecting stroke recovery during the group allocation.
fundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
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.