Amanda Vitória Lacerda de Araújo1, Felipe Piccarone Gonçalves Ribeiro2, Thais Massetti3, Kelsey A Potter-Baker4,5, Mar Cortes6, Ela Bhatt Plow4, Talita Dias da Silva7, James Tonks8, Renato Anghinah3, Fernando Henrique Magalhães7, Felipe Fregni2, Carlos Bandeira de Mello Monteiro7,3. 1. School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, Physical activity sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. amandavla@usp.br. 2. Harvard Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Rehabilitation Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Advanced Platform Technology Center, Louis Strokes Cleveland Department of Veteran's Affairs, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Rehabilitation and Human Performance Department, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 7. School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, Physical activity sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 8. University of Exeter Medical School, Haven Clinical Psychology Practice, Cornwall, UK.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) against sham on muscle strength and motor functionality after incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). SETTING: University of São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: A preplanned protocol was registered (PROSPERO, CRD42016050444). Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Library and BVS databases were searched independently by two authors up to March 2018. Cochrane Collaboration's Tool was used for the risk of bias assessments. Generic inverse variance and random-effects model were used to calculate pooled effect sizes (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Six randomized clinical trials met inclusion criteria (n = 78 iSCI individuals) and were included in the meta-analysis. Results showed a marginal significant pooled effect of active tDCS in improving motor functionality with a small ES (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI = -0.00 to 0.53, p = 0.05, I2 = 0%). On the other hand, the pooled effect of active tDCS on muscle strength did not reach statistical significance, in parallel with a small ES (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI = -0.21 to 0.92, p = 0.22, I2 = 0%) when compared with sham tDCS. No significant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was a significant effect of tDCS in improving motor functionality following iSCI. However, a small ES and the marginal p-value suggest that these results should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality clinical trials are needed to support or refute the use of tDCS in daily clinical practice.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) against sham on muscle strength and motor functionality after incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). SETTING: University of São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: A preplanned protocol was registered (PROSPERO, CRD42016050444). Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Library and BVS databases were searched independently by two authors up to March 2018. Cochrane Collaboration's Tool was used for the risk of bias assessments. Generic inverse variance and random-effects model were used to calculate pooled effect sizes (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Six randomized clinical trials met inclusion criteria (n = 78 iSCI individuals) and were included in the meta-analysis. Results showed a marginal significant pooled effect of active tDCS in improving motor functionality with a small ES (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI = -0.00 to 0.53, p = 0.05, I2 = 0%). On the other hand, the pooled effect of active tDCS on muscle strength did not reach statistical significance, in parallel with a small ES (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI = -0.21 to 0.92, p = 0.22, I2 = 0%) when compared with sham tDCS. No significant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was a significant effect of tDCS in improving motor functionality following iSCI. However, a small ES and the marginal p-value suggest that these results should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality clinical trials are needed to support or refute the use of tDCS in daily clinical practice.