↓ Skip to main content

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving capacity in activities and arm function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
270 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving capacity in activities and arm function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12984-017-0301-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernhard Elsner, Gert Kwakkel, Joachim Kugler, Jan Mehrholz

Abstract

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach for improving capacity in activities of daily living (ADL) and upper limb function 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. We performed a systematic review of randomised trials using network meta-analysis (NMA), searching the following databases until 5 July 2016: 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 ADL capacity, versus control, after stroke. CRD42016042055. We included 26 studies with 754 participants. Our NMA showed evidence of an effect of cathodal tDCS in improving our primary outcome, that of ADL capacity (standardized mean difference, SMD = 0.42; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70). tDCS did not improve our secondary outcome, that of arm function, measured by the Fugl-Meyer upper extremity assessment (FM-UE). There was no difference in safety between tDCS and its control interventions, measured by the number of dropouts and adverse events. Comparing different forms of tDCS shows that cathodal tDCS is the most promising treatment option to improve ADL capacity in people with stroke.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 270 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 11%
Researcher 29 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 81 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 19%
Neuroscience 47 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 12%
Engineering 13 5%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 90 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,052,738
of 24,900,093 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#82
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,824
of 321,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,900,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.