ArticleNeuroSci2025
The Barriers and Facilitators to the Application of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Injury Rehabilitation and Performance Enhancement: A Qualitative Study.
Article in NeuroSci, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
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.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Chinese neurologists toward transcranial direct current stimulation.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Exploring Acceptance of Pain Management Strategies in Oncology: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- What are the optimal transcranial direct current stimulation parameters and design elements to modulate corticospinal excitability? A systematic review and longitudinal meta-analysis.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
- Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates quadriceps motor cortex inhibition and facilitation during rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction: a triple-blind, randomised controlled proof of concept trial.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDespite clinical evidence for efficacy, there has been minimal uptake of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for musculoskeletal conditions. Thus, our objective was to explore the perceptions and experiences of people living with lower-limb musculoskeletal injury as well as healthy physically active populations and relate this to the usage of tDCS and key aspects of tDCS design that would improve the capacity for implementation.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study of 16 participants (44% women) using semi-structured focus groups to identify the descriptions and experiences of people living with lower-limb musculoskeletal injury and healthy physically active populations. A thematic template was used to create a coding structure. Codes were then grouped, and key themes were derived from the data.
resultsFour primary themes were identified from focus groups. These were (i) the impact of musculoskeletal injuries on health and quality of life, (ii) performance and injury recovery as facilitators to using tDCS, (iii) barriers and facilitators to tCDS application and (iv) design and aesthetic factors for a tDCS device. DISCUSSION: Our qualitative descriptive study identified four themes relevant to the successful implementation of tDCS into rehabilitative and performance practice. To increase the likelihood of successful tDCS implementation, these barriers should be addressed and facilitators promoted. This should include innovative approaches to device application and structure that allow for a stylish, user-friendly design.
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.