Elsner Bernhard, Kwakkel Gert, Kugler Joachim, Mehrholz Jan
Department of Public Health, Dresden Medical School, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Physiotherapy, SRH University of Applied Health Sciences Gera, Gera, Germany.
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Sep 13;14(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12984-017-0301-7.
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.
经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)是一种新兴的改善中风后日常生活活动能力(ADL)和上肢功能的方法。然而,哪种类型的tDCS刺激最为有效仍不明确。我们的目的是概述关于tDCS疗效和安全性的证据网络,并评估不同刺激类型的有效性。
我们使用网络荟萃分析(NMA)对随机试验进行了系统评价,检索了以下数据库直至2016年7月5日:Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、AMED、科学引文索引以及其他四个数据库。我们纳入了成年中风患者的研究。我们比较了任何一种主动tDCS(阳极、阴极或双相,即同时应用阳极和阴极tDCS)与对照组相比,对中风后ADL能力这一主要结局的改善情况。
CRD42016042055。
我们纳入了26项研究,共754名参与者。我们的NMA显示有证据表明阴极tDCS对改善我们的主要结局,即ADL能力有效果(标准化均数差,SMD = 0.42;95%置信区间0.14至0.70)。tDCS并未改善我们的次要结局,即通过Fugl-Meyer上肢评估(FM-UE)测量的手臂功能。通过退出人数和不良事件数量衡量,tDCS与其对照干预措施在安全性方面没有差异。
比较不同形式的tDCS表明,阴极tDCS是改善中风患者ADL能力最有前景的治疗选择。