Nyeonju Kang1,2,3, Amelia Weingart1, James H Cauraugh1. 1. a Motor Behavior Laboratory, Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology , University of Florida , Gainesville , FL , USA. 2. b Division of Sport Science , Incheon National University , Incheon , South Korea. 3. c Sport Science Institute , Incheon National University , Incheon , South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the therapeutic effects of cathodal tDCS (ctDCS) that suppresses the contralesional primary motor cortex (cM1) activity for individuals with stroke in different recovery phases. METHODS: Fifteen studies that used ctDCS for suppressing the cM1 activity were included in this meta-analysis. Twenty total comparisons from the qualified studies identified motor function changes between ctDCS and sham protocols. We divided recovery stages into two categories: (a) acute and subacute phases (time since stroke ≤6 months): eight comparisons and (b) chronic phase (time since stroke >6 months): 12 comparisons. RESULTS: Random-effects meta-analysis models revealed motor improvements after applying ctDCS on the cM1 as indicated by a significant standardized effect size (ES = 0.61; P < 0.001). The moderator variable analysis showed that acute and subacute patients revealed no significant effect size of ctDCS (ES = 0.46; P = 0.07), whereas the ctDCS protocol significantly improved motor functions in chronic patients (ES = 0.71; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis indicates that the treatment effects of ctDCS on the cM1 are different between patients in the acute and subacute phases and patients in the chronic phase post-stroke.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the therapeutic effects of cathodal tDCS (ctDCS) that suppresses the contralesional primary motor cortex (cM1) activity for individuals with stroke in different recovery phases. METHODS: Fifteen studies that used ctDCS for suppressing the cM1 activity were included in this meta-analysis. Twenty total comparisons from the qualified studies identified motor function changes between ctDCS and sham protocols. We divided recovery stages into two categories: (a) acute and subacute phases (time since stroke ≤6 months): eight comparisons and (b) chronic phase (time since stroke >6 months): 12 comparisons. RESULTS: Random-effects meta-analysis models revealed motor improvements after applying ctDCS on the cM1 as indicated by a significant standardized effect size (ES = 0.61; P < 0.001). The moderator variable analysis showed that acute and subacute patients revealed no significant effect size of ctDCS (ES = 0.46; P = 0.07), whereas the ctDCS protocol significantly improved motor functions in chronic patients (ES = 0.71; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis indicates that the treatment effects of ctDCS on the cM1 are different between patients in the acute and subacute phases and patients in the chronic phase post-stroke.
Entities:
Keywords:
contralesional hemisphere; motor rehabilitation; primary motor cortex; stroke; tDCS
Authors: Joyce L Chen; Ashley Schipani; Clarissa Pedrini Schuch; Henry Lam; Walter Swardfager; Alexander Thiel; Jodi D Edwards Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Danielle De S Boasquevisque; Larissa Servinsckins; Joselisa P Q de Paiva; Daniel G Dos Santos; Priscila Soares; Danielle S Pires; Jed A Meltzer; Ela B Plow; Paloma F de Freitas; Danielli S Speciali; Priscila Lopes; Mario F P Peres; Gisele S Silva; Shirley Lacerda; Adriana B Conforto Journal: Neural Plast Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 3.599