Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation combined to a resistance training program in chronic stroke survivors: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising tool for stroke rehabilitation. Yet, so far, results from the available clinical trials are inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the present work was to test the efficacy of multiple sessions of tDCS combined with a highly standardized and progressive resistance training program of the affected upper limb in individuals in the chronic phase of recovery after a stroke. Secondary objectives were to test the safety and tolerability of these combined interventions. METHODS: This two-arm parallel pilot trial recruited participants that were ≥18 years old, community-dwelling, and had sustained a supratentorial stroke ≥6 months prior to the study. They were allocated using a stratified randomization into two groups: 1) real tDCS + resistance training and 2) sham tDCS + resistance training. The resistance training program targeted the affected upper limb and consisted in 60 minutes of exercises, 3 times/week over 4 weeks. During each session, participants received either real- or sham-tDCS, using a bi-hemispheric montage for the first 20 minutes, and were blinded to the tDCS intervention. Outcome measures of clinical efficacy (Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Box and Block Test, Wolf Motor Function Test, grip strength, modified Ashworth scale and Motor Activity Log) were assessed by a blinded evaluator before and after the 4-week training program. Safety and tolerability were evaluated, respectively, by the number and characteristics of tDCS adverse events and dropout rates with their reasons. RESULTS: From the 147 individuals screened for eligibility, 14 participants (68.9±10.0 years old; 70.9±57.6 months post-stroke) met the selection criteria and were allocated to real-tDCS (n = 7) or sham-tDCS (n = 7) groups. Both groups improved on the clinical outcome measures, but these changes were not significantly different between groups (p > 0.17). No dropout occurred throughout the study. Participants frequently reported mild skin tingling during the administration of both real- and sham-tDCS, and no group difference was noted for its frequency and intensity (p > 0.38). One participant having received real-tDCS complained about a mild skin burning sensation after two sessions. The a priori sample size analysis performed on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scores revealed that 56 participants would be required in a future clinical trial to reach 80% power at a significance level of 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, repeated sessions of bi-hemispheric tDCS coupled with resistance training were found safe and tolerable for individuals at the chronic phase post-stroke. However, the use of tDCS did not result in additional sensorimotor improvements when compared to sham-tDCS. Further research is needed to better assess the clinical benefits of combining non-invasive transcranial stimulation with rehabilitation after a stroke.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».