MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155163915 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.626021

Does Cathodal vs. Sham Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Contralesional Motor Cortex Enhance Upper Limb Motor Recovery Post-stroke? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3155163915 on OpenAlexafffund
Joyce L. Chen, Ashley Schipani, Clarissa Pedrini Schuch, Henry Lam, Walter Swardfager, Alexander Thiel, Jodi D. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Motor cortexPrimary motor cortexBrain stimulationMeta-analysisNeuroplasticityRandomized controlled trialMedicineFunctional electrical stimulationPsychologyStimulationNeuroscienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: During recovery from stroke, the contralesional motor cortex (M1) may undergo maladaptive changes that contribute to impaired interhemispheric inhibition (IHI). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with the cathode over contralesional M1 may inhibit this maladaptive plasticity, normalize IHI, and enhance motor recovery. Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate available evidence to determine whether cathodal tDCS on contralesional M1 enhances motor re-learning or recovery post-stroke more than sham tDCS. Methods: We searched OVID Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for participants with stroke (>1 week post-onset) with motor impairment and who received cathodal or sham tDCS to contralesional M1 for one or more sessions. The outcomes included a change in any clinically validated assessment of physical function, activity, or participation, or a change in a movement performance variable ( e.g ., time, accuracy). A meta-analysis was performed by pooling five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparing the change in Fugl–Meyer upper extremity scores between cathodal and sham tDCS groups. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Qualitatively, four out of five cross-over design studies and three out of six RCTs reported a significant effect of cathodal vs. sham tDCS. In the quantitative synthesis, cathodal tDCS ( n = 65) did not significantly reduce motor impairment compared to sham tDCS ( n = 67; standardized mean difference = 0.33, z = 1.79, p = 0.07) with a little observed heterogeneity ( I 2 = 5%). Conclusions: The effects of cathodal tDCS to contralesional M1 on motor recovery are small and consistent. There may be sub-populations that may respond to this approach; however, further research with larger cohorts is required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.031
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207