Spontaneous recovery frequently proves maladaptive or insufficient because the plasticity of the injured adult mammalian central nervous system is limited. This limited plasticity serves as a primary barrier to functional recovery after brain injury. Neuromodulation technologies represent one of the fastest-growing fields in medicine. These techniques utilize electricity, magnetism, sound, and light to restore or optimize brain functions by promoting reorganization or long-term changes that support functional recovery in patients with brain injury. Therefore, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the effects and underlying mechanisms of neuromodulation technologies in supporting motor function recovery after brain injury. Many of these technologies are widely used in clinical practice and show significant improvements in motor function across various types of brain injury. However, studies report negative findings, potentially due to variations in stimulation protocols, differences in observation periods, and the severity of functional impairments among participants across different clinical trials. Additionally, we observed that different neuromodulation techniques share remarkably similar mechanisms, including promoting neuroplasticity, enhancing neurotrophic factor release, improving cerebral blood flow, suppressing neuroinflammation, and providing neuroprotection. Finally, considering the advantages and disadvantages of various neuromodulation techniques, we propose that future development should focus on closed-loop neural circuit stimulation, personalized treatment, interdisciplinary collaboration, and precision stimulation.

This study investigates whether the combined effect of kinesthetic motor imagery-based brain computer interface (KI-BCI) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on upper limb function in subacute stroke patients is more effective than using KI-BCI or tDCS alone. Forty-eight subacute stroke survivors were randomized to the KI-BCI, tDCS, or BCI-tDCS group. The KI-BCI group performed 30 min of KI-BCI training. Patients in tDCS group received 30 min of tDCS. Patients in BCI-tDCS group received 15 min of tDCS and 15 min of KI-BCI. The treatment cycle was five times a week, for four weeks. After all intervention, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity, Motor Status Scale, and the Modified Barthel Index scores of the KI-BCI group were superior to those of the tDCS group. The BCI-tDCS group was superior to the tDCS group in terms of the Motor Status Scale. Although quantitative EEG showed no significant group differences, the quantitative EEG indices in the tDCS group were significantly lower than before treatment. In conclusion, after treatment, although all intervention strategies improved upper limb motor function and daily living abilities in subacute stroke patients, KI-BCI demonstrated significantly better efficacy than tDCS. Under the same total treatment duration, the combined use of tDCS and KI-BCI did not achieve the hypothesized optimal outcome. Notably, tDCS reduced QEEG indices, possibly indicating favorable future outcomes in future.Trial registry number: ChiCTR2000034730.

Ischemic stroke is one of the leading causes of death and disability. Dual transcranial direct current stimulation (dual-tDCS) is a promising intervention to treat ischemic stroke, but its efficacy and underlying mechanism remain to be verified. Cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS)-stimulator of interferon genes (STING) pathway has recently emerged as a key mediator in cerebral injury. However, little is known about the effect of cGAS-STING on neuronal damage in ischemic stroke, and it remains to be studied whether the cGAS-STING pathway is involved in tDCS intervention for ischemic stroke. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether dual-tDCS can alleviate ischemic brain injury in a rat model of ischemic stroke and if so, whether via cGAS-STING pathway. Middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) was employed to induce a rat model of ischemic stroke. Male SD rats weighing 250-280 g were randomly assigned to the Sham, MCAO, Dual-tDCS, Dual-tDCS + RU.521, and Dual-tDCS + 2'3'-cGAMP groups, with 10 rats in each group completing the experiment. Behavioral, morphological, MRI, and molecular biological methods were performed. We found that the cGAS-STING pathway was activated and expressed in neurons after MCAO. Dual-tDCS improved motor function and infarct volume, inhibited neuronal apoptosis, promoted the expression of neurotrophins (BDNF and NGF), CD31, and VEGF, and suppressed inflammation reaction after MCAO via the cGAS-STING pathway. Taken together, dual-tDCS may improve MCAO-induced brain injury and promote the recovery of motor function, resulting from the inhibition of neuronal apoptosis and inflammation reaction, as well as promotion of the expression of nerve plasticity- and angiogenesis-related proteins, via cGAS-STING pathway.

BackgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been widely used as an adjunctive treatment for motor function after stroke.ObjectiveTo quantify the effect of tDCS combined with constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) on the functional recovery of the upper limb after stroke.MethodsBy May 2024, two independent authors screened relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test.ResultsOf the 221 retrieved records, seven publications met the criteria for systematic review and quantitative analysis. According to estimates of Hedges'g, significant effects were revealed from Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Limbs (UL-FMA) for upper limb impairment (g = 0.587, 95% CI = 0.256 to 0.919, p < 0.05) and Motor Activity Log-Amount of Movement (MAL-AoM) for perceived amount of motor (g = 0.386, 95% CI = 0.030 to 0.743, p < 0.05). Significant results favoring combined therapy were not found in Motor Activity Log-Quality of Movement (MAL-QoM) (g = 0.181, 95% CI = -0.169 to 0.531, p > 0.05), grip strength (g = 0.135, 95% CI = -0.214 to 0.485, p > 0.05) or Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) (g = 0.210, 95% CI = -0.117 to 0.537, p > 0.05).ConclusionsOur findings confirmed that tDCS enhanced the effect of CIMT in improving upper limb impairment and perceived amount of motor in daily life after stroke.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are the most commonly used non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques. However, NIBS for upper extremity dysfunction remains unclear in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Thus, we aim to determine safety and effectiveness of NIBS for upper extremity dysfunction in children with CP.

Two reviewers conducted literature search on five databases including PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, Scopus, and Embase independently. Systematic review and meta-analyses of included studies were conducted. Studies used standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to calculate pooled effect size between two groups. The statistics I2 was used to assess the heterogeneity between randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Fifteen studies were included, with seven of which examined rTMS and eight studied tDCS. Total 366 children with CP were included. Changes in Box and Block Test (BBT) of the affected hand changed significantly in post (SMD =0.68; 95% CI: 0.02 to 1.34; P=0.044; I2=0%) and 90-minute effect (SMD =0.69; 95% CI: 0.02 to 1.36; P=0.04; I2=0%), and Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) (SMD =-0.51; 95% CI: -0.99 to -0.03; P=0.04; I2=0%) after using tDCS were statistically significant. There was no difference of total number of dropouts between each group. No patients experienced serious adverse events.

NIBS is safe and well tolerated in children with CP. And current evidence suggests that when safety guidelines are followed, NIBS does not induce seizures in pediatric patients with no history of epilepsy or stable epilepsy. tDCS is effective in improving upper extremity dysfunction such as fine motor function especially hand dexterity, and reducing upper extremity spasticity in children with CP. Due to insufficient studies, the effectiveness of rTMS is uncertain.

Procedural learning is the acquisition of motor and non-motor skills through a gradual process that increases with practice. Impairments in procedural learning have been consistently demonstrated in neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative, and neuropsychiatric disorders. Considering that noninvasive brain stimulation modulates brain activity and boosts neuroplastic mechanisms, we reviewed the effects of coupling transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with training methods for motor and non-motor procedural learning to explore tDCS potential use as a tool for enhancing implicit learning in healthy and clinical populations. The review covers tDCS effects over i. motor procedural learning, from basic to complex activities; ii. non-motor procedural learning; iii. procedural rehabilitation in several clinical populations. We conclude that targeting the primary motor cortex and prefrontal areas seems the most promising for motor and non-motor procedural learning, respectively. For procedural rehabilitation, the use of tDCS is yet at an early stage but some effectiveness has been reported for implicit motor and memory learning. Still, systematic comparisons of stimulation parameters and target areas are recommended for maximising the effectiveness of tDCS and its robustness for procedural rehabilitation.

More than half of stroke survivors suffer from upper-limb dysfunction that persists years after stroke, negatively impacting patients' independence and, therefore, affecting their quality of life. Intense motor rehabilitation is required after a stroke to facilitate motor recovery. More importantly, finding new ways to maximize patients' motor recovery is a core goal of stroke rehabilitation. Thus, researchers have explored the potential benefits of combining the effects of non-invasive brain stimulation with physical therapy rehabilitation. Specifically, combining transcranial direct stimulation (tDCS) with neurorehabilitation interventions can boost the brain's responses to interventions and maximize the effects of rehabilitation to improve upper-limb recovery post-stroke. However, it is still unclear which modes of tDCS are optimal for upper-limb motor recovery in patients with stroke when combined with physical therapy interventions. Here, the authors review the existing literature suggesting combining physical therapy rehabilitation with tDCS can maximize patients' motor recovery using the Interhemispheric Competition Model in Stroke. The authors focus on two main rehabilitation paradigms, which are constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) and Mirror therapy with and without tDCS. The authors also discuss potential studies to elucidate further the benefit of using tDCS adjunct with these upper-limb rehabilitation paradigms and its effectiveness in patients with stroke, with the ultimate goal of maximizing patients' motor recovery.

During general anesthesia, frontal electroencephalogram (EEG) activity in the alpha frequency band (8-12 Hz) correlates with the adequacy of analgesia. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and auditory stimulation, two noninvasive neuromodulation techniques, can entrain alpha activity in awake or sleeping patients. This study evaluates their effects on alpha oscillations in patients under general anesthesia.

30 patients receiving general anesthesia for surgery were enrolled in this two-by-two randomized clinical trial. Each participant received active or sham tDCS followed by auditory stimulation or silence according to assigned group (TDCS/AUD, TDCS/SIL, SHAM/AUD, SHAM/SIL). Frontal EEG was recorded before and after neuromodulation. Patients with burst suppression, mid-study changes in anesthetic, or incomplete EEG recordings were excluded from analysis. The primary outcome was post-stimulation change in oscillatory alpha power, compared in each intervention group against the change in the control group SHAM/SIL by Wilcoxon Rank Sum testing.

All 30 enrolled participants completed the study. Of the 22 included for analysis, 8 were in TDCS/AUD, 4 were in TDCS/SIL, 5 were in SHAM/AUD, and 5 were in SHAM/SIL. The median change in oscillatory alpha power was +4.7 dB (IQR 4.4, 5.8 dB) in SHAM/SIL, +2.8 dB (IQR 1.5, 8.9 dB) in TDCS/SIL (p = 0.730), +5.5 dB in SHAM/AUD (p = 0.421), and -6.1 dB (IQR -10.2, -2.2 dB) in TDCS/AUD (p = 0.045).

tDCS and auditory stimulation can be administered safely intraoperatively. However, these interventions did not increase alpha power as administered and measured in this pilot study.

The goal of stroke rehabilitation is to establish a robust protocol for patients to live independently in community. Firstly, we examined the impact of 3 hybridized transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)-mirror therapy interventions on activities of daily life (ADL) in stroke patients. Secondly, we explored the underlying therapeutic mechanisms with theory-driven electroencephalography (EEG) indexes in the alpha band. This was achieved by identifying the unique contributions of alpha power in motor production to ADL in relation to the premotor cortex (PMC), primary cortex (M1), and Sham tDCS with mirror therapy. The results showed that, although post-intervention ADL improvement was comparable among the three tDCS groups, one of the EEG indexes differentiated the interventions. Neural-behavioral correlation analyses revealed that different types of ADL improvements consistently corresponded with alpha power in the temporal lobe exclusively in the PMC tDCS group (all rs > 0.39). By contrast, alterations in alpha power in the central-frontal region were found to vary, with ADL primarily in the M1 tDCS group (r = -0.6 or 0.7), with the benefit depending on the complexity of the ADL. In conclusion, this research suggested two potential therapeutic mechanisms and demonstrated the additive benefits of introducing theory-driven neural indexes in explaining ADL.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in poststroke patients with upper extremity motor dysfunction using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of both active and sham stimulation up until January 27, 2024.

Efficacy, including the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Action Research Arm Test, Barthel Index, and safety, were assessed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 software.

Forty-four studies with 1555 participants were included. Transcranial direct current stimulation proved effective in improving upper extremity motor function (standardized mean difference = 0.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.32, P < 0.001) and Barthel Index (mean difference = 4.65, 95% confidence interval: 2.82-6.49, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed the highest transcranial direct current stimulation efficacy in patients with subacute stroke. Both anodal and cathodal stimulation were effective against upper extremity motor dysfunction. C3/C4 was the most effective stimulus target. Optimal stimulation parameters included stimulus current densities <0.057 mA/cm2 for 20-30 min and <30 sessions. Adverse effects and dropouts during follow-up showed that transcranial direct current stimulation is safe and feasible.

Our findings suggest that both anodal and cathodal stimulation were significantly effective in subacute stroke patients, particularly when preceding other treatments and when C3/C4 is targeted.

This study aimed to determine the effects of warm-up using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on performance factors in collegiate golfers and to provide a scientific basis for the effectiveness and methodology of tDCS. We sought to compare the effects of tDCS as an additional treatment during warm-up. tDCS is generally activated when a small electric current is applied to the motor cortex of the cerebral cortex, which has been reported to be helpful in improving motor function. Therefore, we sought to prove the effectiveness of combined warm-up exercise and tDCS.

Twenty-two collegiate male golfers were divided into tDC- (tDCS; n=11) and sham-treated (sham; n=11) groups. To examine performance factors, the following were assessed following tDCS application: carry, clubhead speed (CHS), ball speed (BS) for driver performance, countermovement jump (CMJ) for lower extremity muscle power, global rating of change (GRC) for the subjective change in condition of the participants, and test of attentional interpersonal style (TAIS) for concentration.

This study showed that warm-up with tDCS had positive effects on carry (p=.004), CHS (p=.019), BS (p=.017) of driver performance, CMJ (p=.002), and GRC (p=.005), however, no significant effect on TAIS was found, which suggest that the effects of the warm-up with tDCS were significant for driver performances, CMJ, and GRC.

Future studies should independently validate the effectiveness of tDCS and apply it to different situations and timeframes, such as training and competitions, to provide new alternative strategies or performance improvement.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) exerts beneficial effects on motor recovery after stroke, presumably by enhancement of adaptive neural plasticity. However, patients with extensive damage may experience null or deleterious effects with the predominant application mode of anodal (excitatory) stimulation of the damaged hemisphere. In such cases, excitatory stimulation of the non-damaged hemisphere might be considered. Here we asked whether tDCS exerts a measurable effect on movement quality of the hemiparetic upper limb, following just a single treatment session. Such effect may inform on the hemisphere that should be excited. Using a single-blinded crossover experimental design, stroke patients and healthy control subjects were assessed before and after anodal, cathodal and sham tDCS, each provided during a single session of reaching training (repeated point-to-point hand movement on an electronic tablet). Group comparisons of endpoint kinematics at baseline-number of peaks in the speed profile (NoP; smoothness), hand-path deviations from the straight line (SLD; accuracy) and movement time (MT; speed)-disclosed greater NoP, larger SLD and longer MT in the stroke group. NoP and MT revealed an advantage for anodal compared to sham stimulation of the lesioned hemisphere. NoP and MT improvements under anodal stimulation of the non-lesioned hemisphere correlated positively with the severity of hemiparesis. Damage to specific cortical regions and white-matter tracts was associated with lower kinematic gains from tDCS. The study shows that simple descriptors of movement kinematics of the hemiparetic upper limb are sensitive enough to demonstrate gain from neuromodulation by tDCS, following just a single session of reaching training. Moreover, the results show that tDCS-related gain is affected by the severity of baseline motor impairment, and by lesion topography.

To evaluate available evidence examining safety and efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on upper extremity outcomes in children with cerebral palsy (CP).

We electronically searched 12 sources up to May 2023 using JBI and Cochrane guidelines. Two reviewers selected articles with predetermined eligibility criteria, conducted data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria.

Nineteen studies were included: eight using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and 11 using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Moderate certainty evidence supports the safety of rTMS and tDCS for children with CP. Very low to moderate certainty evidence suggests that rTMS and tDCS result in little to no difference in upper extremity outcomes.

Evidence indicates that NIBS is a safe and feasible intervention to target upper extremity outcomes in children with CP, although it also indicates little to no significant impact on upper extremity outcomes. These findings are discussed in relation to the heterogeneous participants' characteristics and stimulation parameters. Larger studies of high methodological quality are required to inform future research and protocols for NIBS.

Neurostimulation, the use of electrical stimulation to modulate the activity of the nervous system, is now commonly used for the treatment of chronic pain, movement disorders and epilepsy. Many neurostimulation techniques have now shown promise for the treatment of physical impairments in people with stroke. In 2021, vagus nerve stimulation was approved by the FDA as an adjunct to intensive rehabilitation therapy for the treatment of chronic upper extremity deficits after ischaemic stroke. In 2024, pharyngeal electrical stimulation was conditionally approved by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for neurogenic dysphagia in people with stroke who have a tracheostomy. Many other approaches have also been tested in pivotal device trials and a number of approaches are in early-phase study. Typically, neurostimulation techniques aim to increase neuroplasticity in response to training and rehabilitation, although the putative mechanisms of action differ and are not fully understood. Neurostimulation techniques offer a number of practical advantages for use after stroke, such as precise dosing and timing, but can be invasive and costly to implement. This Review focuses on neurostimulation techniques that are now in clinical use or that have reached the stage of pivotal trials and show considerable promise for the treatment of post-stroke impairments.

Speech disorders have a substantial impact on communication abilities and quality of life. Traditional treatments such as speech and psychological therapies frequently demonstrate limited effectiveness and patient compliance. Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) has emerged as a promising non-invasive treatment to improve neurological functions. However, its effectiveness in enhancing language functions and serum neurofactor levels in individuals with speech disorders requires further investigation.

To investigate the impact of TES in conjunction with standard therapies on serum neurotrophic factor levels and language function in patients with speech disorders.

In a controlled study spanning from March 2019 to November 2021, 81 patients with speech disorders were divided into a control group (n = 40) receiving standard speech stimulation and psychological intervention, and an observation group (n = 41) receiving additional TES. The study assessed serum levels of ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and nerve growth factor (NGF), as well as evaluations of motor function, language function, and development quotient scores.

After 3 wk of intervention, the observation group exhibited significantly higher serum levels of CNTF, GDNF, BDNF, and NGF compared to the control group. Moreover, improvements were noted in motor function, cognitive function, language skills, physical abilities, and overall development quotient scores. It is worth mentioning that the observation group also displayed superior performance in language-specific tasks such as writing, reading comprehension, retelling, and fluency.

This retrospective study concluded that TES combined with traditional speech and psychotherapy can effectively increase the levels of neurokines in the blood and enhance language function in patients with speech disorders. These results provide a promising avenue for integrating TES into standard treatment methods for speech disorders.

Stroke is a leading global cause of death and disability, with motor impairment being one of the common post-stroke complications. Rehabilitation is crucial for functional recovery. Recently, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has emerged as a promising intervention that allows neuromodulation by activating or inhibiting neural activity in specific brain regions. This narrative review aims to examine current research on the effects of various NIBS techniques, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, and transcranial focused ultrasound on post-stroke motor function.

This study investigates whether simultaneous high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) enhances the effects of robot-assisted gait training in stroke patients. Twenty-four participants were randomly allocated to either the robot-assisted gait training with real HD-tDCS group (real HD-tDCS group) or robot-assisted gait training with sham HD-tDCS group (sham HD-tDCS group). Over four weeks, both groups completed 10 sessions. The 10 Meter Walk Test, Timed Up and Go, Functional Ambulation Category, Functional Reach Test, Berg Balance Scale, Dynamic Gait Index, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and Korean version of the Modified Barthel Index were conducted before, immediately after, and one month after the intervention. The real HD-tDCS group showed significant improvements in the 10 Meter Walk Test, Timed Up and Go, Functional Reach Test, and Berg Balance Scale immediately and one month after the intervention, compared with before the intervention. Significant improvements in the Dynamic Gait Index and Fugl-Meyer Assessment were also observed immediately after the intervention. The sham HD-tDCS group showed no significant improvements in any of the tests. Application of HD-tDCS during robot-assisted gait training has a positive effect on gait and physical function in chronic stroke patients, ensuring long-term training effects. Our results suggest the effectiveness of HD-tDCS as a complementary tool to enhance robotic gait rehabilitation therapy in chronic stroke patients.

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a burgeoning approach with the potential to significantly enhance cognition and functional abilities in individuals who have undergone a stroke. However, the current evidence lacks robust comparisons and rankings of various NIBS methods concerning the specific stimulation sites and parameters used. To address this knowledge gap, this systematic review and meta-analysis seek to offer conclusive evidence on the efficacy and safety of NIBS in treating post-stroke cognitive impairment.

A systematic review of randomized control trials (RCT) was performed using Bayesian network meta-analysis. We searched RCT in the following databases until June 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PUBMED, and EMBASE. We compared any active NIBS to control in terms of improving cognition function and activities of daily living (ADL) capacity following stroke.

After reviewing 1577 retrieved citations, a total of 26 RCTs were included. High-frequency (HF)-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (mean difference 2.25 [95% credible interval 0.77, 3.66]) was identified as a recommended approach for alleviating the global severity of cognition. Dual-rTMS (27.61 [25.66, 29.57]) emerged as a favorable technique for enhancing ADL function. In terms of stimulation targets, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex exhibited a higher ranking in relation to the global severity of cognition.

Among various NIBS techniques, HF-rTMS stands out as the most promising intervention for enhancing cognitive function. Meanwhile, Dual-rTMS is highly recommended for improving ADL capacity.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that modulates brain states by applying a weak electrical current to the brain cortex. Several studies have shown that anodal stimulation of the ipsilesional primary motor cortex (M1) may promote motor recovery of the affected upper limb in patients with stroke; however, a high-level clinical recommendation cannot be drawn in view of inconsistent findings. A priming brain stimulation protocol has been proposed to induce stable modulatory effects, in which an inhibitory stimulation is applied prior to excitatory stimulation to a brain area. Our recent work showed that priming theta burst magnetic stimulation demonstrated superior effects in improving upper limb motor function and neurophysiological outcomes. However, it remains unknown whether pairing a session of cathodal tDCS with a session of anodal tDCS will also capitalise on its therapeutic effects.

This will be a two-arm double-blind randomised controlled trial involving 134 patients 1-6 months after stroke onset. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to receive 10 sessions of priming tDCS+robotic training, or 10 sessions of non-priming tDCS+robotic training for 2 weeks. The primary outcome is the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-upper extremity, and the secondary outcomes are the Wolf Motor Function Test and Modified Barthel Index. The motor-evoked potentials, regional oxyhaemoglobin level and resting-state functional connectivity between the bilateral M1 will be acquired and analysed to investigate the effects of priming tDCS on neuroplasticity.

The study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Shanghai Yangzhi Rehabilitation Center (reference number: Yangzhi2023-022) and will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964, as revised in 2013.

ChiCTR2300074681.

Early rehabilitation in the acute phase of stroke, that bears unique neuroplastic properties, is the current standard to reduce disability. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation can augment neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke. Studies in the acute phase are sparse and held back by inconclusive preclinical data pointing towards potential negative interaction of the excitability increasing tDCS modality with stroke-induced glutamate toxicity. In this present study, we aimed to evaluate structural and behavioral safety of anodal tDCS applied in the acute phase of stroke. Photothrombotic stroke including the right primary motor cortex was induced in rats. 24 h after stroke anodal tDCS was applied for 20 min ipsilesionally at one of four different current densities in freely moving animals. Effects on the infarct volume and on stroke induced neuroinflammation were assessed. Behavioral consequences were monitored. Infarct volume and the modified Neurological Severity Score were not affected by anodal tDCS. Pasta handling, a more sensitive task for sensorimotor deficits, and microglia reactivity indicated potentially harmful effects at the highest tDCS current density tested (47.8 A/m2), which is more than 60 times higher than intensities commonly used in humans. Compared to published safety limits of anodal tDCS in healthy rats, recent stroke does not increase the sensitivity of the brain to anodal tDCS, as assessed by lesion size and neuroinflammatory response. Behavioral deficits only occurred at the highest intensity, which was associated with increased neuroinflammation. When safety limits of commonly used clinical tDCS are met, augmentation of early neurorehabilitation after stroke by anodal tDCS appears to be feasible.

Stroke is one of the leading causes of death in the USA and is a major cause of serious disability for adults. This randomized crossover study examines the effect of targeted high-definition transcranial direct current transcranial brain stimulation (tDCS) on upper extremity motor recovery in patients in the post-acute phase of stroke recovery.

This randomized double-blinded cross-over study includes four intervention arms: anodal, cathodal, and bilateral brain stimulation, as well as a placebo stimulation. Participants receive each intervention in a randomized order, with a 2-week washout period between each intervention. The primary outcome measure is change in Motor Evoked Potential. Secondary outcome measures include the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FM-UE) score, a subset of FM-UE (A), related to the muscle synergies, and the Modified Ashworth Scale.

We hypothesize that anodal stimulation to the ipsilesional primary motor cortex will increase the excitability of the damaged cortico-spinal tract, reducing the UE flexion synergy and enhancing UE motor function. We further hypothesize that targeted cathodal stimulation to the contralesional premotor cortex will decrease activation of the cortico-reticulospinal tract (CRST) and the expression of the upper extremity (UE) flexion synergy and spasticity. Finally, we hypothesize bilateral stimulation will achieve both results simultaneously. Results from this study could improve understanding of the mechanism behind motor impairment and recovery in stroke and perfect the targeting of tDCS as a potential stroke intervention. With the use of appropriate screening, we anticipate no ethical or safety concerns. We plan to disseminate these research results to journals related to stroke recovery, engineering, and medicine.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05479006 . Registered on 26 July 2022.

Electrical activity has a crucial impact on the development and survival of neurons. Numerous recent studies have shown that noninvasive electrical stimulation (NES) has neuroprotective action in various retinal disorders.

To systematically review the literature on in vivo studies and provide a comprehensive summary of the neuroprotective action and the mechanisms of NES on retinal disorders.

Based on the PRISMA guideline, a systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library to collect all relevant in vivo studies on "the role of NES on retinal diseases" published up until September 2023. Possible biases were identified with the adopted SYRCLE's tool.

Of the 791 initially gathered studies, 21 articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria for full-text review. The results revealed the neuroprotective effect of NES (involved whole-eye, transcorneal, transscleral, transpalpebral, transorbital electrical stimulation) on different retinal diseases, including retinitis pigmentosa, retinal degeneration, high-intraocular pressure injury, traumatic optic neuropathy, nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy. NES could effectively delay degeneration and apoptosis of retinal neurons, preserve retinal structure and visual function with high security, and its mechanism of action might be related to promoting the secretion of neurotrophins and growth factors, decreasing inflammation, inhibiting apoptosis. The quality scores of included studies ranged from 5 to 8 points (a total of 10 points), according to SYRCLE's risk of bias tool.

This systematic review indicated that NES exerts neuroprotective effects on retinal disease models mainly through its neurotrophic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-apoptotic capabilities. To assess the efficacy of NES in a therapeutic setting, however, well-designed clinical trials are required in the future.

The aims of this study are to evaluate the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation for improving disorders of consciousness and to compare efficacy of the different etiologies of disorders of consciousness.

Randomized controlled trials or crossover trials examining effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with disorders of consciousness were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The sample characteristics, etiology, transcranial direct current stimulation treatment characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan software.

We included nine trials providing data with 331 participants and found that transcranial direct current stimulation improved the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised score of disorders of consciousness patients. We found a significant improvement of Coma Recovery Scale-Revised score in the minimally conscious state group (weighted mean difference = 0.77, 95% confidence interval = 0.30-1.23, P = 0.001), but not in the vegetative state or unresponsive wakefulness syndrome group. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation are related to etiology, as the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised score was improved in the traumatic brain injury group (weighted mean difference = 1.18, 95% confidence interval = 0.60-1.75, P < 0.001), but not in vascular accident and anoxia groups.

This meta-analysis revealed the evidence for positive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on disorders of consciousness without adverse effects observed in minimally conscious state patients. In particular, transcranial direct current stimulation may be an effective treatment in rehabilitating cognitive functions in people with traumatic brain injury.

Multiple forms of electrical stimulation (ES) potentially offer widely varying clinical benefits. Diminished function commonly associated with acute and chronic pain lessens productivity and increases medical costs. This review aims to compare the relative effects of various forms of ES on functional and pain outcomes.

A comprehensive literature search focused on studies of commonly marketed forms of ES used for treatment of pain and improvement of function. Peer-reviewed manuscripts were categorized as "Important" (systematic review or meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, observational cohort study) and "Minor" (retrospective case series, case report, opinion review) for each identified form of ES.

Varying forms of ES have markedly different technical parameters, applications, and indications, based on clinically meaningful impact on pain perception, function improvement, and medication reduction. Despite being around for decades, there is limited quality evidence for most forms of ES, although there are several notable exceptions for treatment of specific indications. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has well-demonstrated beneficial effects for rehabilitation of selective spinal cord injured (SCI), post-stroke, and debilitated inpatients. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has similarly shown effectiveness in rehabilitation of some stroke, SCI, and foot drop outpatients. H-Wave® device stimulation (HWDS) has moderate supportive evidence for treatment of acute and refractory chronic pain, consistently demonstrating improvements in function and pain measures across diverse populations. Interestingly, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), the most widely used form of ES, demonstrated insignificant or very low levels of pain and functional improvement.

Ten of 13 reviewed forms of ES have only limited quality evidence for clinically significant reduction of pain or improvement of function across different patient populations. NMES and FES have reasonably demonstrated effectiveness, albeit for specific clinical rehabilitation indications. HWDS was associated with the most clinically significant outcomes, in terms of functional improvement combined with reduction of pain and medication use. More rigorous long-term clinical trials are needed to further validate appropriate use and specific indications for most forms of ES.

II.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has gained popularity as a method of modulating cortical excitability in people with physical and mental disabilities. However, there is a lack of consensus on its effectiveness in older individuals. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a 2-month tDCS program for improving physical and mental performance in community-dwelling older individuals. In this single-blinded, controlled clinical trial, forty-two participants were allocated to one of three groups: (1) the tDCS group, which received, twice a week, 20 min sessions of 2 mA electric current through electrodes placed on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; (2) the tDCS-placebo group, which underwent the same electrode placement as the tDCS group but without actual electric stimulation; and (3) the cognitive-control group, which completed crossword puzzles. Main outcome measures were cognition, mobility, and anxiety. Multivariate analyses of variance were employed. Significance was set at 5% (p < 0.05). Regarding the results, no significant benefits were observed in the tDCS group compared with the tDCS-placebo or cognitive-control groups for cognition (p = 0.557), mobility (p = 0.871), or anxiety (p = 0.356). Cognition exhibited positive oscillations during the assessments (main effect of time: p = 0.001). However, given that all groups showed similar variations in cognitive scores (main effect of group: p = 0.101; group × time effect: p = 0.557), it is more likely that the improvement reflects the learning response of the participants to the cognitive tests rather than the effect of tDCS. In conclusion, a 2-month tDCS program with two sessions per week appears to be ineffective in improving physical and mental performance in community-dwelling older individuals. Further studies are necessary to establish whether or not tDCS is effective in healthy older individuals.

To compare the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NiBS) such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), theta-burst stimulation (TBS), and transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) in upper limb stroke rehabilitation.

PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2010 to June 2022.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of "tDCS", "rTMS", "TBS", or "taVNS" on upper limb motor function and performance in activities of daily livings (ADLs) after stroke.

Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

87 RCTs with 3750 participants were included. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that all NiBS except continuous TBS (cTBS) and cathodal tDCS were significantly more efficacious than sham stimulation for motor function (standardized mean difference [SMD] range 0.42-1.20), whereas taVNS, anodal tDCS, and both low and high frequency rTMS were significantly more efficacious than sham stimulation for ADLs (SMD range 0.54-0.99). NMA showed that taVNS was more effective than cTBS (SMD:1.00; 95% CI (0.02-2.02)), cathodal tDCS (SMD:1.07; 95% CI (0.21-1.92)), and Physical rehabilitation alone (SMD:1.46; 95% CI (0.59-2.33)) for improving motor function. P-score found that taVNS is best ranked treatment in improving motor function (SMD: 1.20; 95% CI (0.46-1.95)) and ADLs (SMD:1.20; 95% CI (0.45-1.94)) after stroke. After taVNS, excitatory stimulation protocols (intermittent TBS, anodal tDCS, and HF-rTMS) are most effective in improving motor function and ADLs after acute/sub-acute (SMD range 0.53-1.63) and chronic stroke (SMD range 0.39-1.16).

Evidence suggests that excitatory stimulation protocols are the most promising intervention in improving upper limb motor function and performance in ADLs. taVNS appeared to be a promising intervention for stroke patients, but further large RCTs are required to confirm its relative superiority.

The cerebellum is involved in regulating motor, affective, and cognitive processes. It is a promising target for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) intervention in stroke.

To review the current evidence for cerebellar tDCS (ctDCS) in stroke, its problems, and its future directions.

We searched the Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases. Eligible studies were identified after a systematic literature review of the effects of ctDCS in stroke patients. The changes in assessment scale scores and objective indicators after stimulation were reviewed.

Eleven studies were included in the systematic review, comprising 169 stroke patients. Current evidence suggests that anode tDCS on the right cerebellar hemisphere does not appear to enhance language processing in stroke patients. Compared with the sham group, stroke patients showed a significant improvement in the verb generation task after cathodal ctDCS stimulation. However, with regard to naming, two studies came to the opposite conclusion. The contralesional anodal ctDCS is expected to improve standing balance but not motor learning in stroke patients. The bipolar bilateral ctDCS protocol to target dentate nuclei (PO10h and PO9h) had a positive effect on standing balance, goal-directed weight shifting, and postural control in stroke patients.

ctDCS appears to improve poststroke language and motor dysfunction (particularly gait). However, the evidence for these results was insufficient, and the quality of the relevant studies was low. ctDCS stimulation parameters and individual factors of participants may affect the therapeutic effect of ctDCS. Researchers need to take a more regulated approach in the future to conduct studies with large sample sizes. Overall, ctDCS remains a promising stroke intervention technique that could be used in the future.

Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is an important cause of disability and mortality and affects people of all ages. Current scientific evidence indicates that motor dysfunction and cognitive impairment are the main limiting factors in patients with sTBI. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) seems to be a good therapeutic option, but when it comes to patients with sTBI, the results are inconclusive, and some protocols have not yet been tested. In addition, there is still a lack of information on tDCS-related physiological mechanisms, especially during the acute phase. In the present study, based on current evidence on tDCS mechanisms of action, we hypothesized that performing tDCS sessions in individuals with sTBI, especially in the acute and subacute phases, together with conventional therapy sessions, could improve cognition and motor function in this population. This hypothesis presents a new possibility for treating sTBI, seeking to elucidate the extent to which early tDCS may affect long-term clinical outcomes.

Several studies have investigated the effect of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on upper limb motor function in stroke, but the evidence so far is conflicting.

We aimed to determine the effect of NIBS on upper limb motor impairment, functional performance, and participation in activities of daily living after stroke.

Literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of "tDCS" or "rTMS" combined with other therapies on upper extremity motor recovery after stroke. The outcome measures were Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), and Barthel Index (BI). The mean difference (MD) and 95%CI were estimated for motor outcomes. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of evidence.

Twenty-five RCTs involving 1102 participants were included in the review. Compared to sham stimulation, NIBS combined with other therapies has effectively improved FMA-UE (MD0.97 [95%CI, 0.09 to 1.86; p = .03]) and BI score (MD9.11 [95%CI, 2.27 to 15.95; p = .009]) in acute/sub-acute stroke (MD1.73 [95%CI, 0.61 to 2.85; p = .003]) but unable to modify FMA-UE score in chronic stroke (MD-0.31 [95%CI, -1.77 to 1.15; p = .68]). Only inhibitory (MD3.04 [95%CI, 1.76 to 4.31; I² = 82%, p < .001] protocol is associated with improved FMA-UE score. Twenty minutes of stimulation/session for ≥20 sessions was found to be effective in improving FMA-UE score (Stimulation time: ES0.45; p ≤ .001; Sessions: ES0.33; p ≤ .001). The NIBS did not produce any significant improvement in WMFT as compared to sham NIBS (MD0.91 [95% CI, -0.89 to 2.70; p = .32]).

Moderate to high-quality evidence suggested that NIBS combined with other therapies is effective in improving upper extremity motor impairment and participation in activities of daily living after acute/sub-acute stroke.

Many patients do not fully regain motor function after ischemic stroke. Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) targeting the motor cortex may improve motor outcome as an add-on intervention to physical rehabilitation. However, beneficial effects on motor function vary largely among patients within and across TDCS trials. In addition to a large heterogeneity of study designs, this variability may be caused by the fact that TDCS was given as a one-size-fits-all protocol without accounting for anatomical differences between subjects. The efficacy and consistency of TDCS might be improved by a patient-tailored design that ensures precise targeting of a physiologically relevant area with an appropriate current strength.

In a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial, patients with subacute ischemic stroke and residual upper-extremity paresis will receive two times 20 min of focal TDCS of ipsilesional primary motor hand area (M1-HAND) during supervised rehabilitation training three times weekly for 4 weeks. Anticipated 60 patients will be randomly assigned to active or sham TDCS of ipsilesional M1-HAND, using a central anode and four equidistant cathodes. The placement of the electrode grid on the scalp and current strength at each cathode will be personalized based on individual electrical field models to induce an electrical current of 0.2 V/m in the cortical target region resulting in current strengths between 1 and 4 mA. Primary endpoint will be the difference in change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score between active TDCS and sham at the end of the intervention. Exploratory endpoints will include UE-FMA at 12 weeks. Effects of TDCS on motor network connectivity and interhemispheric inhibition will be assessed with functional MRI and transcranial magnetic stimulation.

The study will show the feasibility and test the efficacy of personalized, multi-electrode anodal TDCS of M1-HAND in patients with subacute stroke patients with upper-extremity paresis. Concurrent multimodal brain mapping will shed light into the mechanisms of action of therapeutic personalized TDCS of M1-HAND. Together, the results from this trial may inform future personalized TDCS studies in patients with focal neurological deficits after stroke.

Motor, speech, and cognitive impairments are the most common consequences of neurological disorders. There has been an increasing interest in the use of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation to augment the effects of neurorehabilitation. Numerous research studies have shown that transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation are highly promising neuromodulation tools that can work as adjuvants to standard neurorehabilitation services, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology. However, to date, there are vast differences in methodology in studies including noninvasive brain stimulation parameters, patient characteristics, time point of intervention after injury, and outcome measures, making it difficult to translate and implement transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation in the clinical setting. Despite this, a series of principles are thought to underlie the effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques. We developed a noninvasive brain stimulation rehabilitation program using these principles to provide best practices for applying transcranial direct current stimulation and/or transcranial magnetic stimulation as rehabilitation adjuvants in the clinical setting to help improve neurorehabilitation outcomes. This article outlines our approach, philosophy, and experience.

Stroke is the prime cause of disability in the elderly population. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging noninvasive brain stimulation in rehabilitating upper limb function post-stroke. However, mixed evidence exists in the literature and ambiguous conclusions regarding the effect of tDCS on upper limb function.

This study aimed to assess the current evidence on the effect of (tDCS) on upper limb motor function and activities of daily living in patients after stroke by conducting an overview of systematic reviews.

We performed electronic database searches and gray literature searches for the articles.

Two distinct literature searches gathered a total of 203 studies. Out of them, six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included for methodological quality assessment and data extraction. All included studies were determined to be of good to high quality based on a methodological appraisal using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist.

Identified evidence suggests that tDCS has superior effects to control interventions in improving functions of the upper limb and activities of daily living in patients who have had a stroke. Moreover, cathodal stimulation over the non-affected brain region was more effective than anodal and dual tDCS stimulation.

Transcranial direct current stimulation has been widely used in the clinical treatment of stroke. The purpose of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of scientific literature in this field.

Articles and reviews regarding transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke from January 01, 2004 to May 31, 2022 were identified from the Science Citation Index-Expanded of the Web of Science Core Collection database. CiteSpace 6.1.R2, Bibliometrix and the Bibliometric Online Analysis Platform were used to analyze data.

A total of 905 papers were obtained, with the highest number of publications coming from the USA. The institutions and authors with the most publications were Harvard Medical School and Fregni F respectively. Nitsche MA had the most co-citations, followed by Fregni F. Neurosciences was the most fruitful research area and Brain Stimulation had the highest H-index. The research topics could be divided into three sections: mechanisms of treatment, comparison of efficacy with transcranial magnetic stimulation, clinical application of post-stroke dysfunction. The field of "walking", "strength" and "virtual reality therapy" are the future research hotspots of transcranial direct current stimulation.

The overall research showed a slow growth trend, and the outstanding contribution of the USA in this field cannot be ignored. Relevant researchers are suggested to focus on international collaboration and actively conduct high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials on research hotspots and frontiers in order to identify the optimal stimulation paradigm for clinical purposes.

Action observation (AO) can improve motor performance in humans, probably via the human mirror neuron system. In addition, there is some evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can improve motor performance. However, it is yet to be determined whether AO combined with tDCS has an enhanced effect on motor performance. We investigated the effect of AO combined with high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) targeting the inferior parietal lobe (IPL) and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), the main aggregates of the human mirror neuron system, on motor performance in healthy adults and compared the immediate vs. 24-h retention test effects (anodal electrodes were placed over these regions of interest). Sixty participants were randomly divided into three groups that received one of the following single-session interventions: (1) observation of a video clip that presented reaching movement sequences toward five lighted units + active HD-tDCS stimulation (AO + active HD-tDCS group); (2) observation of a video clip that presented the same reaching movement sequences + sham HD-tDCS stimulation (AO + sham HD-tDCS group); and (3) observation of a video clip that presented neutral movie while receiving sham stimulation (NM + sham HD-tDCS group). Subjects' reaching performance was tested before and immediately after each intervention and following 24 h. Subjects performed reaching movements toward units that were activated in the same order as the observed sequence during pretest, posttest, and retest. Occasionally, the sequence order was changed by beginning the sequence unexpectedly with a different activated unit. Outcome measures included mean Reaching Time and difference between the Reaching Time of the unexpected and expected reaching movements (Delta). In the posttest and retest, Reaching Time and Delta improved in the AO + sham HD-tDCS group compared to the NM + HD-sham tDCS group. In addition, at posttest, Delta improved in the AO + active HD-tDCS group compared to the NM + sham HD-tDCS group. It appears that combining a montage of active HD-tDCS, which targets the IPL and IFG, with AO interferes with the positive effects of AO alone on the performance of reaching movement sequences.

Little is known about the optimal timing and neural loci for applying noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to promote gait and balance recovery after stroke.

To identify the optimal timing and neural loci of NIBS for gait and balance recovery after stroke.

We performed a PubMed search using keywords of stroke, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, NIBS, balance, and gait. Interventional trials with various designs published in English were selected. Both flowcharts and tables were used for the result presentation.

The majority of selected 31 studies included individuals with chronic stroke and primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation. Studies' quality ranged from 4 to 10 (max = 10) on the Pedro scale. NIBS led to improvements in gait and balance in individuals with chronic and subacute stroke, yet the evidence for the acute phase of stroke is limited. Further, stimulation over the ipsilesional M1 resulted in improvement in gait and balanced performance. Stimulation over non-motor regions such as the cerebellum has been limitedly explored.

Current evidence supports the use of NIBS to the M1 in conjunction with behavioral training to improve gait and balance performance in individuals with subacute and chronic stroke. Future research is recommended to evaluate the effect of NIBS during acute stroke and over neural loci other than M1, and to implement a more rigorous method.

Stroke is the world's second leading cause of death and the first cause of disability among all diseases. The most common complication of a stroke is a violation of the motor function of the limbs, which significantly worsens the quality of life and the level of self-care and independence of patients. Restoring the function of the upper limb is one of the priority tasks of rehabilitation after a stroke. A large number of factors, such as the location and size of the primary brain lesion, the presence of complications in the form of spasticity, impaired skin and proprioceptive sensitivity, and comorbidities, determine the patient's rehabilitation potential and the prognosis of ongoing rehabilitation measures. Of particular note are the timing of the start of rehabilitation measures, the duration and regularity of the treatment methods. A number of authors propose scales for assessing the rehabilitation prognosis, as well as algorithms for compiling rehabilitation programs for restoring the function of the upper limb. A fairly large number of rehabilitation methods and their combinations have been proposed, including special methods of kinesitherapy, robotic mechanotherapy with biofeedback, the use of physiotherapeutic factors, manual and reflex effects, as well as ready-made programs that include sequential and combined use of various methods. Dozens of studies have been devoted to comparative analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of these methods. The purpose of this work is to review current research on a given topic and draw up our own conclusion on the appropriateness of using and combining these methods at various stages of rehabilitation in stroke patients.

Stroke is one of the most prevalent diseases. Motor impairment in patients with stroke frequently affects the upper extremities. Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tried to prove whether or not the combination of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with virtual reality (VR) is superior to VR alone for upper extremity rehabilitation.

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library database, and Clinicaltrials.gov for relevant RCTs published before June 10, 2022. The results were analyzed by using standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

We pooled 120 patients from 4 RCTs. There were no significant improvements in the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity scale (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI, -0.04 to 1.06), the Box and Block Test (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.86), and the Modified Ashworth Scale after the combined treatment of tDCS and VR. But tDCS combined with VR could enhance the Barthel Index scores in patients with stroke compared to VR alone (SMD = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.94).

The combination of tDCS and VR can improve the quality of daily living in patients with stroke. No more satisfactory efficacy has been demonstrated in terms of upper extremity function. However, we observe a distinct trend toward significance in some outcomes.

Background: Over the past decade, many studies in the field of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in stroke have been published in scholarly journals. However, a scientometric analysis focusing on tDCS after stroke is still missing. The purpose of this study is to deliver a bibliometric analysis to investigate the global hotspots and frontiers in the domain of tDCS in stroke from 2012 to 2021. Methods: Articles and reviews related to tDCS in stroke were retrieved and obtained from the Web of Science core collection database from 2012 to 2021. Data visualization and analysis were conducted by using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Microsoft Excel 2019. Results: Finally, 371 publications were included in the scientometric analysis, including 288 articles and 83 reviews. The results showed that the number of publications per year increased from 15 to 68 in the last 10 years. Neurosciences was the main research hotspot category (n = 201). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience was the most published journal with 14 papers. The most productive author, institution, and country were Fregni F (n = 13), the League of European Research Universities (n = 37), and the United States of America (n = 98), respectively. A burstness analysis of keywords and the literature indicated that current studies in the field of tDCS in stroke focused on poststroke aphasia, tDCS combined with robotic therapy, and anatomical parameters. Conclusion: The research of tDCS in stroke is predicted to remain a research hotspot in the future. We recommend investigating the curative effect of other different tDCS closed-loop rehabilitation methods for different stroke dysfunctions. In conclusion, this bibliometric study presented the hotspots and trends of tDCS in stroke over the last decade, which may help researchers manage their further studies.

Network meta-analysis is a method that can estimate relative efficacy between treatments that may not have been compared directly within the literature. The purpose of this study is to present a network meta-analysis of non-conventional interventions to improve upper extremity motor impairment after stroke.

A literature search was conducted in 5 databases from their inception until April 1, 2021. Terms were used to narrow down articles related to stroke, the upper extremity, and interventional therapies. Randomized controlled trials written in English were eligible if; 50% poststroke patients; ≥18 years old; applied an intervention for the upper extremity, and/or used the Fugl-Meyer upper extremity scale as an outcome measure; the intervention had ≥3 randomized controlled trials with comparisons against a conventional care group; conventional care groups were dose matched for therapy time. A Bayesian network meta-analysis approach was taken to estimate mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.

One hundred seventy-six randomized controlled trials containing 6781 participants examining 20 non-conventional interventions were identified for inclusion within the final model. Eight of the identified interventions proved significantly better than conventional care, with modified constraint induced movement therapy (MD, 6.7 [95% CI, 4.3-8.9]), high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (MD, 5.4 [95% CI, 1.9-8.9]), mental imagery (MD, 5.4 [95% CI, 1.8-8.9]), bilateral arm training (MD, 5.2 [95% CI, 2.2-8.1]), and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (MD, 5.1 [95% CI, 0.62-9.5]) occupying the top 5 spots according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

Overall, it would seem that modified constraint induced movement therapy has the greatest probability of being the most effective intervention, with high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, mental imagery, and bilateral arm training all having similar probabilities of occupying the next spot in the rankings. We think this analysis can provide a guide for where future resources and clinical trials should be directed, and where a clinician may begin when considering alternative therapeutic interventions.

Several studies have investigated the effect of mind-body exercise (MBE) on functional performance and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Parkinson's disease (PD), but it is still very difficult for clinicians to make informed decision on the best mind-body exercise for PD.

We analyzed the relative efficacy of MBE (yoga, Tai-Chi, Pilates, Qigong, and dance) in improving functional performance and HRQoL in patients with PD.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using network meta-analysis (NMA), searching the following databases: Cochrane, Web of Science, and PubMed using specific keywords until December 28, 2021, assessing the effects of MBE on functional performance and HRQoL in patients with PD.

This review included 60 RCTs with 2037 participants. A ranking of MBE for modifying various aspects of functional performance and HRQoL was achieved. Pairwise NMA showed Pilates to be the most effective in improving functional mobility (MD: - 3.81; 95% CI (- 1.55, - 6.07) and balance performance (SMD: 2.83; 95% CI (1.87, 3.78). Yoga (MD: - 5.95; 95% CI (- 8.73, - 3.16) and dance (MD: - 5.87; 95% CI (- 8.73, - 3.01) to be the most effective in improving motor function, whereas Qigong (MD: 0.32; 95% CI (0.00, 0.64) was most effective in improving gait speed. Considering HRQoL, dance was found to be the most effective (SMD: - 0.36; 95% CI (- 0.70, -0.01).

MBE should be considered an effective strategy for improving functional performance and HRQoL in patients with PD. The most effective MBE intervention varied with the functional performance domain. Dance was an effective exercise for improving HRQoL among people with PD.

CRD42022301030.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising tool to improve and speed up motor rehabilitation after stroke, but inconsistent clinical effects refrain tDCS from clinical implementation. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the need for individualized tDCS configurations in stroke, considering interindividual variability in brain anatomy and motor function representation. We simulated tDCS in individualized MRI-based finite element head models of 21 chronic stroke subjects and 10 healthy age-matched controls. An anatomy-based stimulation target, i.e. the motor hand knob, was identified with MRI, whereas a motor function-based stimulation target was identified with EEG. For each subject, we simulated conventional anodal tDCS electrode configurations and optimized electrode configurations to maximize stimulation strength within the anatomical and functional target. The normal component of the electric field was extracted and compared between subjects with stroke and healthy, age-matched controls, for both targets, during conventional and optimized tDCS. Electrical field strength was significantly lower, more variable and more frequently in opposite polarity for subjects with stroke compared to healthy age-matched subjects, both for the anatomical and functional target with conventional, i.e. non-individualized, electrode configurations. Optimized, i.e. individualized, electrode configurations increased the electrical field strength in the anatomical and functional target for subjects with stroke but did not reach the same levels as in healthy subjects. Considering individual brain structure and motor function is crucial for applying tDCS in subjects with stroke. Lack of individualized tDCS configurations in subjects with stroke results in lower electric fields in stimulation targets, which may partially explain the inconsistent clinical effects of tDCS in stroke trials.