Literature DB >> 21978654

Does anodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhance excitability of the motor cortex and motor function in healthy individuals and subjects with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A Bastani1, S Jaberzadeh.   

Abstract

The primary aim of this review is to evaluate the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) on corticomotor excitability and motor function in healthy individuals and subjects with stroke. The secondary aim is to find a-tDCS optimal parameters for its maximal effects. Electronic databases were searched for studies into the effect of a-tDCS when compared to no stimulation. Studies which met the inclusion criteria were assessed and methodological quality was examined using PEDro and Downs and Black (D&B) assessment tools. Data from seven studies revealed increase in corticomotor excitability with a small but significant effect size (0.31 [0.14, 0.48], p=0.0003) in healthy subjects and data from two studies in subjects with stroke indicated significant results with moderate effect size (0.59 [0.24, 0.93], p=0.001) in favor of a-tDCS. Likewise, studies examining motor function demonstrated a small and non-significant effect (0.39 [-0.17, 0.94], p=0.17) in subjects with stroke and a large but non-significant effect (0.92 [-1.02, 2.87], p=0.35) in healthy subjects in favor of improvement in motor function. The results also indicate that efficacy of a-tDCS is dependent on current density and duration of application. A-tDCS increases corticomotor excitability in both healthy individuals and subjects with stroke. The results also show a trend in favor of motor function improvement following a-tDCS. A-tDCS is a non-invasive, cheap and easy-to-apply modality which could be used as a stand-alone technique or as an adds-on technique to enhance corticomotor excitability and the efficacy of motor training approaches. However, the small sample size of the included studies reduces the strength of the presented evidences and any conclusion in this regard should be considered cautiously.
Copyright © 2011 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21978654     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.08.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  86 in total

1.  Personalized upper limb training combined with anodal-tDCS for sensorimotor recovery in spastic hemiparesis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mindy F Levin; Melanie C Baniña; Silvi Frenkel-Toledo; Sigal Berman; Nachum Soroker; John M Solomon; Dario G Liebermann
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 2.  Non-pharmaceutical therapies for stroke: mechanisms and clinical implications.

Authors:  Fan Chen; Zhifeng Qi; Yuming Luo; Taylor Hinchliffe; Guanghong Ding; Ying Xia; Xunming Ji
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 11.685

3.  Cross-education of muscular strength is facilitated by homeostatic plasticity.

Authors:  Ashlyn K Frazer; Jacqueline Williams; Michael Spittle; Dawson J Kidgell
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 4.  Treatments in context: transcranial direct current brain stimulation as a potential treatment in pediatric psychosis.

Authors:  Christopher N David; Judith L Rapoport; Nitin Gogtay
Journal:  Expert Rev Neurother       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.618

5.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Post-Stroke Upper Extremity Motor Recovery Studies Exhibit a Dose-Response Relationship.

Authors:  Pratik Y Chhatbar; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; Steven Kautz; Mark S George; Robert J Adams; Wuwei Feng
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 6.  Sex differences in stroke therapies.

Authors:  Farida Sohrabji; Min Jung Park; Amanda H Mahnke
Journal:  J Neurosci Res       Date:  2017-01-02       Impact factor: 4.164

7.  Smarter, not harder.

Authors:  Tim Hornyak
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 8.  Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on post-stroke dysphagia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jessica M Pisegna; Asako Kaneoka; William G Pearson; Sandeep Kumar; Susan E Langmore
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 3.708

9.  Facilitatory non-invasive brain stimulation in older adults: the effect of stimulation type and duration on the induction of motor cortex plasticity.

Authors:  Rohan Puri; Mark R Hinder; Alison J Canty; Jeffery J Summers
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-07-23       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 10.  Electrifying the motor engram: effects of tDCS on motor learning and control.

Authors:  Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.