ReviewNeurology international2025
Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Functional Electrical Stimulation for Upper Limbs in Individuals with Stroke: A Systematic Review.
Review in Neurology international, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) are established interventions to enhance upper limb motor function (ULMF) in people with stroke (PwS). However, evidence supporting their combined use remains limited and inconsistent. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of combined tDCS and FES for improving ULMF, activity, and participation in PwS.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from inception to December 2024. Randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥18 years) with acute, subacute, or chronic stroke undergoing combined tDCS and FES interventions were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro scale, and risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. A qualitative synthesis was performed employing a five-level evidence grading system.
resultsFive RCTs involving 148 participants (mean age range: 50.6-61.2 years; 26% female) were included. Stroke chronicity ranged from 7.6 days to 27.5 months post-onset. Four studies reported significant ULMF improvements with the combined intervention. However, activity and participation outcomes were inconsistently assessed, and results remained inconclusive. Methodological quality varied, with one study rated as excellent, two as good, one as fair, and one as poor. The risk of bias was rated high or with concerns in four out of five studies.
conclusionsBased on qualitative synthesis, moderate-level evidence supports the combined use of tDCS and FES for improving ULMF in PwS. However, high variability in protocols, small sample sizes, and the increased risk of bias in most studies limit the strength of these conclusions. Standardized protocols and larger high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this combined intervention.
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.