Dataset Information

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Pediatric Motor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To systematically examine the safety and effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) interventions in pediatric motor disorders.

Data sources

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched from inception to August 2018.

Study selection

tDCS randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, conference proceedings, and dissertations in pediatric motor disorders were included. Two authors independently screened articles based on predefined inclusion criteria.

Data extraction

Data related to participant demographics, intervention, and outcomes were extracted by 2 authors. Quality assessment was independently performed by 2 authors.

Data synthesis

A total of 23 studies involving a total of 391 participants were included. There was no difference in dropout rates between active (1 of 144) and sham (1 of 144) tDCS groups, risk difference 0.0, 95% confidence interval (-.05 to .04). Across studies, the most common adverse effects in the active group were tingling (17.2%), discomfort (8.02%), itching (6.79%), and skin redness (4%). Across 3 studies in children with cerebral palsy, tDCS significantly improved gait velocity (MD=.23; 95% confidence interval [0.13-0.34]; P<.0005), stride length (MD=0.10; 95% confidence interval [0.05-0.15]; P<.0005), and cadence (MD=15.7; 95% confidence interval [9.72-21.68]; P<.0005). Mixed effects were found on balance, upper extremity function, and overflow movements in dystonia.

Conclusion

Based on the studies reviewed, tDCS is a safe technique in pediatric motor disorders and may improve some gait measures and involuntary movements. Research to date in pediatric motor disorders shows limited effectiveness in improving balance and upper extremity function. tDCS may serve as a potential adjunct to pediatric rehabilitation; to better understand if tDCS is beneficial for pediatric motor disorders, more well-designed RCTs are needed.

SUBMITTER: Saleem GT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7927962 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Pediatric Motor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Saleem Ghazala T GT Crasta Jewel E JE Slomine Beth S BS Cantarero Gabriela Lucila GL Suskauer Stacy J SJ

Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 20181107 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically examine the safety and effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) interventions in pediatric motor disorders.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched from inception to August 2018.<h4>Study selection</h4>tDCS randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, conference proceedings, and dissertations in pediatric motor disorders were included. Two authors independe ...[more]

PMID: 30414398

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Conventional transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) may improve motor learning in children. Mechanisms are not understood. Neuronavigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can produce individualised maps of primary motor cortex (M1) topography. We aimed to determine the effects of tDCS- and HD-tDCS-enhanced motor learning on motor maps. Methods: Typically developing children aged 12-18 years were randomised to right M1 anodal tDCS, HD-tDCS, or Sham during training of their left-hand on the Purdue Pegboard Task (PPT) over 5 days. Bilateral motor mapping was performed at baseline (pre), day 5 (post), and 6-weeks retention time (RT). Primary muscle was the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) with secondary muscles of abductor pollicis brevis (APB) and adductor digiti minimi (ADM). Primary mapping outcomes were volume (mm2/mV) and area (mm2). Secondary outcomes were centre of gravity (COG, mm) and hotspot magnitude (mV). Linear mixed-effects modelling was employed to investigate effects of time and stimulation type (tDCS, HD-tDCS, Sham) on motor map characteristics. Results: Twenty-four right-handed participants (median age 15.5 years, 52% female) completed the study with no serious adverse events or dropouts. Quality maps could not be obtained in two participants. No effect of time or group were observed on map area or volume. LFDI COG (mm) differed in the medial-lateral plane (x-axis) between tDCS and Sham (p = 0.038) from pre-to-post mapping sessions. Shifts in map COG were also observed for secondary left-hand muscles. Map metrics did not correlate with behavioural changes. Conclusion: Robotic TMS mapping can safely assess motor cortex neurophysiology in children undergoing motor learning and neuromodulation interventions. Large effects on map area and volume were not observed while changes in COG may occur. Larger controlled studies are required to understand the role of motor maps in interventional neuroplasticity in children.

Project description:Purpose(1) To determine the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied alone or combined with other therapies on the recovery of motor function after stroke and (2) To determine tDCS dosage effect.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing the effects of tDCS with sham, using the Barthel Index (BI), the upper and lower extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), and the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), were retrieved from PubMed, Medline (EBSCO), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from their inception to June 2021. Calculations for each assessment were done for the overall effect and associated therapy accounting for the influence of stroke severity or stimulation parameters.ResultsA total of 31 studies involving metrics of the BI, the upper extremity FMA, the lower extremity FMA, and the MAS were included. tDCS combined with other therapies was beneficial when assessed by the BI (mean difference: 6.8; P < 0.01) and these studies typically had participants in the acute stage. tDCS effects on the upper and lower extremity FMA are unclear and differences between the sham and tDCS groups as well as differences in the associated therapy type combined with tDCS potentially influenced the FMA results. tDCS was not effective compared to sham for the MAS. Stimulation types (e.g., anodal vs. cathodal) did not influence these results and dosage parameters were not associated with the obtained effect sizes. Conventional therapy associated with tDCS typically produced greater effect size than assisted therapy. The influence of stroke severity is unclear.ConclusionPotential benefits of tDCS can vary depending on assessment tool used, duration of stroke, and associated therapy. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the potential role of stimulation type and dosage effect after stroke. Future studies should carefully conduct group randomization, control for duration of stroke, and report different motor recovery assessments types.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021290670].

Project description:Background: Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) appears to modulate motor performance in both adaptation and motor skill tasks; however, whether the gains are long-lasting is unclear. Objectives: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of ctDCS with respect to different time scales of motor learning. Methods: Ten electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORT Discus, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane via OVID, Evidence-Based Reviews (EBM) via OVID, AMED: Allied and Complementary Medicine, PsycINFO, and PEDro) were systematically searched. Studies evaluating the effect of ctDCS compared to sham ctDCS on motor learning in healthy individuals were selected and reviewed. Two authors independently reviewed the quality of the included studies using the revised Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool. The results were extracted with respect to the time scale in which changes in motor performance were evaluated. Results: Seventeen randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria of which 65% of the studies had a "high" risk-of-bias, and 35% had "some concerns." These studies included data from 629 healthy participants. Of the studies that evaluated the effect of anodal ctDCS during and immediately after the stimulation, four found enhanced, three found impaired, and ten found no effect on gains in motor performance. Of the studies that evaluated the effect of anodal ctDCS after a break of 24 h or more, seven found enhanced, two found impaired, and one found no effect on gains in motor performance. Of the studies that evaluated the effect of cathodal ctDCS across a range of time scales, five found impaired, one found enhanced, and five found no effect on gains in motor performance. Conclusions: In healthy individuals, anodal ctDCS appears to improve short to longer-term motor skill learning, whereas it appears to have no effect on gains in motor performance during and immediate after the stimulation. ctDCS may have potential to improve motor performance beyond the training period. The challenge of the motor task and its characteristics, and the stimulation parameters are likely to influence the effect of ctDCS on motor learning.

Project description:BackgroundTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) have been described as promising alternatives to treat different pain syndromes. This study evaluated the effects of TMS and tDCS in the treatment of chronic orofacial pain, through a systematic review.MethodsAn electronic search was performed in major databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, BBO, Open Gray and CINAHL. The eligibility criteria comprised randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that applied TMS or tDCS to treat chronic orofacial pain. The variables analyzed were pain, functional limitation, quality of life, tolerance to treatment, somatosensory changes, and adverse effects. The risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated through GRADE. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018090774).ResultsThe electronic search resulted in 636 studies. Thereafter, the eligibility criteria were applied and the duplicates removed, resulting in eight RCTs (four TMS and four tDCS). The findings of these studies suggest that rTMS applied to the Motor cortex (M1), the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) provide adequate orofacial pain relief. Two studies reported significant pain improvement with tDCS applied over M1 while the other two failed to demonstrate significant effects compared to placebo.ConclusionsrTMS, applied to M1, DLPFC or S2, is a promising approach for the treatment of chronic orofacial pain. Moreover, tDCS targeting M1 seems to be also effective in chronic orofacial pain treatment. The included studies used a wide variety of therapeutic protocols. In addition, most of them used small sample sizes, with a high risk of biases in their methodologies, thus producing a low quality of evidence. The results indicate that further research should be carried out with caution and with better-standardized therapeutic protocols.

Dataset Information

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Pediatric Motor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Data synthesis

Conclusion

Publications

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Pediatric Motor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets