ArticleJournal of athletic training2025
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over the Motor or Frontal Cortex in Patients with Chronic Ankle Instability.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does transcranial direct current stimulation enhance sensorimotor recovery in chronic ankle instability? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Can exercise therapy combined with transcranial direct current stimulation further improve balance ability in individuals with chronic ankle instability? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- The Additive Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Exercise-Based Rehabilitation Interventions on Balance, Ankle Kinematics, and Muscle Activity in Individuals With Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review.Health science reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGrowing evidence has suggested clinical efficacy for the use of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) when combined with motor interventions in patients with chronic ankle instability (CAI). However, no studies have compared multiple approaches for improving motor function with atDCS in patients with CAI. We therefore aimed to determine the efficacy of atDCS over the motor or frontal cortex when combined with a four-week motor planning intervention on neural function, performance, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with CAI.
designDouble-blind, sham-controlled, parallel randomized control trial.
methodsParticipants (n=44, 15 males, 29 females, 23.6±6.1 yrs) were assessed for outcome measures of cortical and reflexive excitability; performance measures of dynamic balance, muscle activation, reaction times, and cognitive performance on a dual-task balance test; and patient-reported outcome measures at baseline, mid-training (week 2), post-training (week 4), and retention (week 6). After baseline testing, participants were randomized to receive atDCS over the motor cortex, frontal cortex, or a sham current during rehabilitation exercises over four weeks. Participants reported for eight training sessions where they were instrumented for atDCS while performing obstacle walking, dual-task balance, and agility exercises. Analyses between groups and time points were performed with mixed linear models (α=0.05).
resultsForty-six individuals were recruited & randomized with 37 completing the investigation (motor=14, frontal=11, sham=12). No differences across groups or times were observed in neural excitability or muscle activation variables (P>0.05). Significant improvements in dynamic postural stability indices were observed from baseline across all groups (P<0.05). Improvements were observed for foot & ankle function, perceived disablement, and the Global Rating of Change at post-training and retention (p<0.001).
conclusionsImprovements in patient function were observed across all groups, suggesting the motor planning intervention improved function, regardless of atDCS application. Observing benefits from atDCS may be dependent on proper pairing of rehabilitation exercise with electrode location.
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.