scholarly journals Effects of Combining Online Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Gait Training in Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsubasa Mitsutake ◽  
Takeshi Imura ◽  
Tomonari Hori ◽  
Maiko Sakamoto ◽  
Ryo Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gait Training ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Anodal Tdcs ◽  
Walking Test ◽  
Gait Performance ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

Objective: Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive gait training may be effective for gait performance recovery after stroke; however, the timing of stimulation to obtain the best outcomes remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish evidence for changes in gait performance between online stimulation (tDCS and repetitive gait training simultaneously) and offline stimulation (gait training after tDCS).Methods: We comprehensively searched the electronic databases Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and included studies that combined cases of anodal tDCS with motor-related areas of the lower limbs and gait training. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis.Result: The pooled effect estimate showed that anodal tDCS significantly improved the 10-m walking test (p = 0.04; I2 = 0%) and 6-min walking test (p = 0.001; I2 = 0%) in online stimulation compared to sham tDCS.Conclusion: Our findings suggested that simultaneous interventions may effectively improve walking ability. However, we cannot draw definitive conclusions because of the small sample size. More high-quality studies are needed on the effects of online stimulation, including various stimulation parameters.

scholarly journals The Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Balance and Gait in Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Dong ◽  
Shifeng Meng ◽  
Ziqi Guo ◽  
Rufang Zhang ◽  
Panpan Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Functional Independence ◽  
Berg Balance Scale ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Timed Up And Go ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

Objective: Balance dysfunction after stroke often results in individuals unable to maintain normal posture, limits the recovery of gait and functional independence. We explore the short-term effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on improving balance function and gait in stroke patients.Methods: We systematically searched on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for studies that explored the effects of tDCS on balance after stroke until August 2020. All involved studies used at least one measurement of balance, gait, or postural control as the outcome.Results: A total of 145 studies were found, of which 10 (n = 246) met the inclusion criteria and included in our studies. The present meta-analysis showed that active tDCS have beneficial effects on timed up and go test (TUGT) [mean difference (MD): 0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.11 to 0.58] and Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) (MD: −2.54; 95% CI: −3.93 to −1.15) in stroke patients. However, the results were not significant on the berg balance scale (BBS) (MD: −0.20; 95% CI: −1.44 to 1.04), lower extremity subscale of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-LE) (MD: −0.43; 95% CI: −1.70 to 0.84), 10-m walk test (10 MWT) (MD: −0.93; 95% CI: −2.68 to 0.82) and 6-min walking test (6 MWT) (MD: −2.55; 95% CI: −18.34 to 13.23).Conclusions: In conclusion, we revealed that tDCS might be an effective option for restoring walking independence and functional ambulation for stroke patients in our systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic Review Registration: CRD42020207565.

scholarly journals Short-Term Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Endurance and Maximal Force Production. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alix-Fages ◽  
Romero-Arenas ◽  
Castro-Alonso ◽  
Colomer-Poveda ◽  
Río-Rodriguez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Performance Enhancement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Voluntary Contraction ◽  
Anodal Tdcs ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Short Term Effects

The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on endurance (i.e., time to task failure (TTF)) and maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Furthermore, we aimed to analyze whether the duration of stimulation, the brain region targeted for stimulation, and the task performed could also influence motor performance. We performed a systematic literature review in the databases MEDLINE and Web of Science. The short-term effects of anodal tDCS and sham stimulation (placebo) were considered as experimental and control conditions, respectively. A total of 31 interventions were included (MVC = 13; TTF = 18). Analysis of the strength-related tDCS studies showed small improvements in the MVC (SMD = 0.19; 95% CI = −0.02, 0.41; p = 0.08). However, the results of the endurance-related interventions indicated a moderate effect on TTF performance (SMD = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.45; p = 0.008). Furthermore, the sub-analysis showed that anodal tDCS over M1 and stimulation durations longer than 10 min produced the best results in terms of TTF performance enhancement. Additionally, the effects of anodal tDCS were larger during full body exercises (i.e., cycling) when compared to uniarticular tasks. In conclusion, the current meta-analysis indicated that anodal tDCS leads to small and moderate effects on MVC and TTF, respectively.

Is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effective for chronic low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 127 (9) ◽  
pp. 1257-1270
Author(s):  
Mohammad Alwardat ◽  
Antonio Pisani ◽  
Mohammad Etoom ◽  
Roberta Carpenedo ◽  
Elisabetta Chinè ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

scholarly journals Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Enhance Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana M. A. Suarez-García ◽  
Johan S. Grisales-Cárdenas ◽  
Máximo Zimerman ◽  
Juan F. Cardona
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Cognitive Deficits ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Cognitive Improvement

Cognitive deficits are increasingly being recognized as a common trait in Parkinson's disease (PD). Recently, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to exert positive effects as an adjunctive therapy on motor and non-motor symptoms in PD. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide an overview of reported evidence on the efficacy of tDCS interventions in the treatment of cognitive impairments in PD. A systematic literature review was conducted to examine articles that were published in the past 10 years and that study the effects of tDCS on cognitive deficits in PD patients. The PubMed, Scopus and Scielo databases were searched. Eight tDCS studies involving 168 participants were included for the analysis. Our meta-analysis results showed that anodal tDCS (atDCS) had various levels or no evidence of effectiveness. In the pre-post stimulation analysis, a strong effect was reported for executive functions (pre-post: g = 1.51, Z = 2.41, p = 0.016); non-significant effects were reported for visuospatial skills (pre-post: g = 0.27, Z = 0.69, p = 0.490); attention (pre-post: g = 0.02, Z = 0.08, p = 0.934), memory (pre-post: g = 0.01, Z = 0.03, p = 0.972) and language (pre-post: g = 0.07, Z = 0.21, p = 0.832). However, in the pre-follow-up stimulation analysis, the duration of the effect was not clear. This study highlights the potential effectiveness of atDCS to improve cognitive performance in PD patients but failed to establish a cause-effect relationship between tDCS intervention and cognitive improvement in PD. Future directions and recommendations for methodological improvements are outlined.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document