Multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation and upper extremity rehabilitation in stroke: A review and meta-analysis. Issue 1 (January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tedesco Triccas, L.; Burridge, J.H.; Hughes, A.M.; Pickering, R.M.; Desikan, M.; Rothwell, J.C.; Verheyden, G.
• Is Part Of: Clinical neurophysiology. Volume 127:Issue 1(2016:Jan.)
• Page Start: 946
• Page End: 955
• Publication Date: 2016-01
• Subjects: Transcranial direct current stimulation -- Rehabilitation -- Stroke -- Upper extremity -- Recovery -- Non-invasive brain stimulation; Neurophysiology -- Periodicals; Electroencephalography -- Periodicals; Electromyography -- Periodicals; Neurology -- Periodicals; 612.8
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.04.067
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1388-2457

Abstract

Highlights: tDCS and rehabilitation had small non-significant effect on upper extremity impairments. Varied tDCS and rehabilitation programmes were identified in selected studies. Future research needs to further analyse tDCS and therapy interventions in stroke. Abstract: Objective: To systematically review the methodology in particular treatment options and outcomes and the effect of multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with rehabilitation programmes for upper extremity recovery post stroke. Methods: A search was conducted for randomised controlled trials involving tDCS and rehabilitation for the upper extremity in stroke. Quality of included studies was analysed using the Modified Downs and Black form. The extent of, and effect of variation in treatment parameters such as anodal, cathodal and bi-hemispheric tDCS on upper extremity outcome measures of impairment and activity were analysed using meta-analysis. Results: Nine studies (371 participants with acute, sub-acute and chronic stroke) were included. Different methodologies of tDCS and upper extremity intervention, outcome measures and timing of assessments were identified. Real tDCS combined with rehabilitation had a small non-significant effect of +0.11 ( p = 0.44) and +0.24 ( p = 0.11) on upper extremity impairments and activities at post-intervention respectively. Conclusion: Various tDCS methods have been used in stroke rehabilitation. The evidence so far is not statistically significant, but is suggestive of, at best, a small beneficial effect on upper extremity impairment. Significance: Future research should focus on which patients and rehabilitation programmes are likely to respond to different tDCS regimes.