Transcranial direct current stimulation for upper extremity spasticity rehabilitation in stroke survivors: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on upper extremity spasticity after stroke and to define the most effective tDCS parameters. Literature Survey: Systematic review in the following databases: PubMed, SCOPUS, PEDro, CINAHL, MEDLINE, REHABDATA, AMED, and Web of Science databases. Studies up to June 2020 were included. Methodology: Studies were included if the sample was composed of individuals with stroke, the intervention followed a tDCS intervention (alone or combined with another intervention), and the study was a randomized controlled trial including at least one measurement assessing upper extremity spasticity. Two authors independently screened the included studies. Conflicting decisions between authors were resolved by discussion with the third author. The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The authors determined that the meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity in the protocols among the included studies. Synthesis: After the screening of 1204 records, a total of seven studies met the specified inclusion criteria and involved 320 participants (mean age = 60.3), 31.1% of whom were females. Patients with ischemic stroke comprised 77.2% of the total patients, and 42.2% were with right hemispheric stroke. Six studies exhibited "high" quality and one exhibited "moderate" quality. Five of the selected studies that combined the tDCS intervention and other traditional interventions showed a significant reduction in upper extremity spasticity after stroke following tDCS intervention. The other two studies that delivered tDCs alone did not show a significant difference. Conclusions: The evidence for the effect of tDCS on upper extremity spasticity after stroke was limited. The optimal tDCS treatment dosage remains unclear. Additional studies with large sample sizes and long-term follow-up are strongly warranted.

Transcranial-Direct-Current-Stimulation Accelerates Motor Recovery After Cortical Infarction in Mice: The Interplay of Structural Cellular Responses and Functional Recovery

“…Consistently, the recent literature shows that in humans, tDCS improved long-term motor recovery when applied in addition to established rehabilitation regimes but not alone. [56][57][58] In this context, it would be interesting to investigate tDCS combined with physical exercise or an enriched environment, which was not addressed in this study. However, both enhanced recovery of function and modulation of inflammation after stroke have repeatedly been demonstrated.…”

“…The first scan was a 10 minutes transmission scan using a 57 Co source for attenuation correction. The tracer [ 11 C] PK11195 was measured in concentrations of 3.7 to 7.4 MBq/ mouse immediately after the intravenous administration for up to 30 minutes.…”

Comparative Effects of Whole-Body Vibration and Squatting Training on Balance and Mobility in Chronic Stroke Patients. A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Electrical stimulation (E, stim) can help you overcome many of the side effects of initial strokes, from enhancing motor abilities to preventing atrophy. 9 In 2021, Kim JW, et al reported that the improvement of walking ability after WBV training is considered a result of the neural plastic change. The vibration has a positive effect on spasticity by affecting presynaptic inhibition.…”

Noninvasive brain stimulation for spasticity rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

“…24 Recently, many systematic reviews have shown that NIBS is promising in reducing spasticity in stroke survivors. 25,26 Wang et al showed evidence that NIBS decreases spasticity in stroke survivors. 27 Li et al examined the impacts of NIBS on cognition and motor functions in PwMS; two studies in terms of spasticity were included.…”