ArticleCureus2025
Cortical Neural Plastic Changes Post-stroke Using Bicephalic Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Prospective Non-randomized Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has attracted attention among researchers as it has significant neurorehabilitative effects post-stroke. The purpose of the study was to investigate the safety, feasibility, and probable efficacy of bicephalic tDCS in improving hand function after stroke. Methods We conducted a prospective non-randomized controlled study involving two groups of participants with chronic stroke. Participants were allocated to real tDCS (r-tDCS) and age-matched controls to sham tDCS (s-tDCS). The treatment session was for 20 minutes, along with physiotherapy for four weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), while secondary outcomes were the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), modified Barthel Index (mBI), Brunnstrom stage, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures. All the assessments were done at baseline, four weeks, and three months. Results Ninety-five patients were recruited. No side effects were reported. FMA (d=0.75; 95% CI: 1.17 to 0.34; p=0.03) and mBI (d=0.70; 95% CI: 1.11 to 0.19; p=0.04) showed significant improvement at three months, although mean FMA was higher in r-tDCS than s-tDCS at four weeks. ARAT and Medical Research Council (MRC) were statistically insignificant between the groups at all time points. A mild increase in the cluster counts of premotor and primary motor cortex (Brodmann area (BA) 4 and BA 6) in group 1 was observed at four weeks and three months. Conclusion The novel intervention tDCS was safe and compliant among subjects but failed to report a significant efficacy between the two groups. A greater neural activation of ipsilesional primary motor regions (BA 4 and BA 6) and a weak positive correlation of FMA with laterality index (LI) were observed in the r-tDCS group than the s-tDCS group which may have led to improved hand function.
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.