Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Clinical Applications: Therapeutics

Horvath, Jared Cooney; Najib, Umer; Press, Daniel Z.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0879-0_12

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One-third of strokes, particularly left-sided strokes involving language networks, lead to aphasia ( Franzén-Dahlin et al, 2010 ; Basso et al, 2013 ; Rohde et al, 2013 ), an acquired language expression and/or comprehension disorder. Aphasia is one of the most socially disabling post-stroke deficits; symptoms often persist after therapy ( Lazar et al, 2010 ), so new rehabilitation techniques are needed, particularly low-risk therapies such as tDCS. Generally, tDCS treatment aims to address interhemispheric competition between residual language areas in the damaged left hemisphere and the intact right hemisphere ( Kiran, 2012 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

Fregni

El-Hagrassy

Pacheco‐Barrios

et al. 2020

International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology

386

242

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects. Objective We convened a team of tDCS experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than one session of stimulation testing: Pain, Parkinson’s Disease Motor Function and Cognition, Stroke Motor Function and Language, Epilepsy, Major Depressive Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Tourette Syndrome, Schizophrenia and Drug Addiction. Methods Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into: Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective) or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies. Results Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A) such as depression, probably effective (Level B) such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson´s disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain, and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy). Conclusion All recommendations listed here are based on current published Pubmed-indexed data. Despite high level of evidence in some conditions, it needs to be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

Fregni

El-Hagrassy

Pacheco‐Barrios

et al. 2020

International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology

386

242

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

CNS Non-invasive Brain Stimulation

El-Hagrassy

Jones

Rosa

et al. 2018

Adult and Pediatric Neuromodulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of skin conductivity on the electric field induced by transcranial stimulation techniques in different head models

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims at quantifying the effect that using different skin conductivity values has on the estimation of the electric (E)-field distribution induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the brain of two anatomical models. The induced E-field was calculated with numerical simulations inside MIDA and Duke models, assigning to the skin a conductivity value estimated from a multi-layered skin model and three values taken from literature. The effect of skin conductivity variations on the local E-field induced by tDCS in the brain was up to 70%. In TMS, minor local differences, in the order of 20%, were obtained in regions of interest for the onset of possible side effects. Results suggested that an accurate model of the skin is necessary in all numerical studies that aim at precisely estimating the E-field induced during TMS and tDCS applications. This also highlights the importance of further experimental studies on human skin characterization, especially at low frequencies.

show abstract

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Clinical Applications: Therapeutics

Cited by 4 publications

References 105 publications

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

CNS Non-invasive Brain Stimulation

Effect of skin conductivity on the electric field induced by transcranial stimulation techniques in different head models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About