Cargando…
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
BACKGROUND: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach for improving aphasia after stroke. However, it remains unclear what type of tDCS stimulation is most effective. Our aim was to give an overview of the evidence network regarding the efficacy and safety of tDCS and to...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7346463/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32641152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00708-z |
_version_ | 1783556413369352192 |
---|---|
author | Elsner, Bernhard Kugler, Joachim Mehrholz, Jan |
author_facet | Elsner, Bernhard Kugler, Joachim Mehrholz, Jan |
author_sort | Elsner, Bernhard |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach for improving aphasia after stroke. However, it remains unclear what type of tDCS stimulation is most effective. Our aim was to give an overview of the evidence network regarding the efficacy and safety of tDCS and to estimate the effectiveness of the different stimulation types. METHODS: This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the following databases until 4 February 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, and four other databases. We included studies with adult people with stroke. We compared any kind of active tDCS (anodal, cathodal, or dual, that is applying anodal and cathodal tDCS concurrently) regarding improvement of our primary outcome of functional communication, versus control, after stroke. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019135696. RESULTS: We included 25 studies with 471 participants. Our NMA showed that tDCS did not improve our primary outcome, that of functional communication. There was evidence of an effect of anodal tDCS, particularly over the left inferior frontal gyrus, in improving our secondary outcome, that of performance in naming nouns (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90). There was no difference in safety between tDCS and its control interventions, measured by the number of dropouts and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Comparing different application/protocols of tDCS shows that the anodal application, particularly over the left inferior frontal gyrus, seems to be the most promising tDCS treatment option to improve performance in naming in people with stroke. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7346463 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73464632020-07-14 Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Elsner, Bernhard Kugler, Joachim Mehrholz, Jan J Neuroeng Rehabil Review BACKGROUND: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach for improving aphasia after stroke. However, it remains unclear what type of tDCS stimulation is most effective. Our aim was to give an overview of the evidence network regarding the efficacy and safety of tDCS and to estimate the effectiveness of the different stimulation types. METHODS: This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the following databases until 4 February 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, and four other databases. We included studies with adult people with stroke. We compared any kind of active tDCS (anodal, cathodal, or dual, that is applying anodal and cathodal tDCS concurrently) regarding improvement of our primary outcome of functional communication, versus control, after stroke. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019135696. RESULTS: We included 25 studies with 471 participants. Our NMA showed that tDCS did not improve our primary outcome, that of functional communication. There was evidence of an effect of anodal tDCS, particularly over the left inferior frontal gyrus, in improving our secondary outcome, that of performance in naming nouns (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90). There was no difference in safety between tDCS and its control interventions, measured by the number of dropouts and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Comparing different application/protocols of tDCS shows that the anodal application, particularly over the left inferior frontal gyrus, seems to be the most promising tDCS treatment option to improve performance in naming in people with stroke. BioMed Central 2020-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7346463/ /pubmed/32641152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00708-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Elsner, Bernhard Kugler, Joachim Mehrholz, Jan Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title | Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_full | Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_fullStr | Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_short | Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_sort | transcranial direct current stimulation (tdcs) for improving aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7346463/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32641152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00708-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elsnerbernhard transcranialdirectcurrentstimulationtdcsforimprovingaphasiaafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT kuglerjoachim transcranialdirectcurrentstimulationtdcsforimprovingaphasiaafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT mehrholzjan transcranialdirectcurrentstimulationtdcsforimprovingaphasiaafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials |