Transcranial direct current stimulation for improving ambulation after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hui-Hsun Tien, Wen-Yu Liu, Yi-Lin Chen, Yi-Chen Wu, Hen-Yu Lien
Author Information
  1. Hui-Hsun Tien: Department of Physical Therapy, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City.
  2. Wen-Yu Liu: School of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City.
  3. Yi-Lin Chen: Department of Physical Therapy, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City.
  4. Yi-Chen Wu: Cardiac Rehabilitation Center, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei.
  5. Hen-Yu Lien: School of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City.

Abstract

Achieving a sufficient level of functional ambulation remains to be a challenge to most stroke survivors. Different modes of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been applied for improving various aspects of walking and mobility following stroke. However, systematic reviews before 2017 provided only general effects of tDCS on limited walking outcomes. Therefore, the aims of this study were to update the evidence of tDCS for improving walking and mobility after stroke with emphasis on individual outcomes and to delineate the effects of different modes of tDCS in subgroup analysis. The systematic search of PubMed, Medline, PEDro, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies published up to January 2019 identified 14 eligible reports. The PEDro scale indicated a good methodological quality of the included studies (score 6.8). The meta-analysis of primary outcomes revealed that active tDCS had no better effect than sham on walking speed [n = 7, standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.189, P = 0.252] and 6-minute walking distance (n = 3, SMD = 0.209, P = 0.453). Among the secondary outcomes, significant positive effects were found on functional ambulation category (FAC) (n = 5, SMD = 0.542, P = 0.008), Rivermead Mobility Index (n = 3, SMD = 0.699, P = 0.008), and timed up and go test (TUG) (n = 5, SMD = 0.676, P = 0.001), whereas non-significant positive effects were found on Tinetti test (n = 3, SMD = 0.441, P = 0.062) and Berg Balance Scale (n = 2, SMD = 0.408, P = 0.177). In subgroup analyses, anodal tDCS had significant positive effects on FAC (n = 4, SMD = 0.611, P = 0.005) and dual-hemispheric tDCS on TUG (n = 2, SMD = 1.090, P = 0.000). The results provide up-to-date evidence of variable effects of tDCS on walking and functional mobility after stroke.

References

  1. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 [PMID: 19621072]
  2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 21;3:CD009645 [PMID: 26996760]
  3. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Jan;127(1):946-955 [PMID: 25998205]
  4. Expert Rev Neurother. 2007 Oct;7(10):1417-36 [PMID: 17939776]
  5. Brain Stimul. 2016 Jan-Feb;9(1):16-26 [PMID: 26433609]
  6. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Aug 23;10:426 [PMID: 27601988]
  7. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2013 Mar;37(1):14-9 [PMID: 23389388]
  8. J Physiol. 2000 Sep 15;527 Pt 3:633-9 [PMID: 10990547]
  9. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Aug;26(4):272-9 [PMID: 19584748]
  10. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Aug;86(8):1641-7 [PMID: 16084820]
  11. Brain Stimul. 2016 Mar-Apr;9(2):182-90 [PMID: 26553475]
  12. Front Psychiatry. 2012 Jul 12;3:66 [PMID: 22807918]
  13. Trends Neurosci. 2014 Dec;37(12):742-53 [PMID: 25189102]
  14. Disabil Rehabil. 2005 Mar 18;27(6):315-40 [PMID: 16040533]
  15. Clin Rehabil. 2011 Jun;25(6):537-48 [PMID: 21402651]
  16. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2017;35(4):377-384 [PMID: 28697574]
  17. Stroke. 2016 Jun;47(6):e98-e169 [PMID: 27145936]
  18. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jan;88(1):115-9 [PMID: 17207686]
  19. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58 [PMID: 12111919]
  20. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Sep;27(7):592-601 [PMID: 23609526]
  21. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 Apr;123(4):644-57 [PMID: 21978654]
  22. Neurology. 2010 Dec 14;75(24):2176-84 [PMID: 21068427]
  23. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015 Mar 17;9:26 [PMID: 25852494]
  24. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;25(5):457-507 [PMID: 18477843]
  25. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014 Mar;26(3):363-5 [PMID: 24707084]
  26. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Mar;27(3):623-5 [PMID: 25931694]
  27. Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2007 Jul;3(7):383-93 [PMID: 17611487]
  28. Brain Stimul. 2017 Jul - Aug;10(4):721-734 [PMID: 28385535]
  29. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Nov-Dec;25(9):819-29 [PMID: 21803933]
  30. Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Feb;20(1):107-134 [PMID: 29909569]
  31. Neurosci Lett. 2018 Jan 1;662:302-305 [PMID: 29107706]
  32. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Sep;128(9):1774-1809 [PMID: 28709880]
  33. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(15-16):1383-8 [PMID: 21110732]
  34. Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):140-9 [PMID: 11914310]
  35. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2003 Summer;10(2):1-18 [PMID: 13680515]
  36. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Jan;101(1):141-153 [PMID: 31568760]
  37. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:547290 [PMID: 24895588]
  38. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32(4):527-32 [PMID: 24906374]
  39. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2015;33(3):357-68 [PMID: 26410579]
  40. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Sep;61(5):286-291 [PMID: 29763676]
  41. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2018;36(1):59-71 [PMID: 29439362]
  42. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2017;35(5):527-536 [PMID: 28800341]
  43. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(20):1857-63 [PMID: 25401406]
  44. Aust J Physiother. 2002;48(1):43-9 [PMID: 11869164]
  45. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(1):67-76 [PMID: 23949035]
  46. Brain Stimul. 2015 May-Jun;8(3):561-6 [PMID: 25736569]
  47. Stroke Res Treat. 2013;2013:170256 [PMID: 23533955]
  48. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016 Apr;87(4):345-55 [PMID: 26319437]

MeSH Term

Exercise Test
Gait Disorders, Neurologic
Humans
Stroke Rehabilitation
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0=0SMDPtDCSnwalkingeffectsstrokeoutcomesfunctionalambulationimprovingmobilitysystematic3positivemodesdirectcurrentstimulationevidencesubgroupPEDrostudiesmeta-analysissignificantfoundFAC5008testTUG2AchievingsufficientlevelremainschallengesurvivorsDifferenttranscranialappliedvariousaspectsfollowingHoweverreviews2017providedgenerallimitedThereforeaimsstudyupdateemphasisindividualdelineatedifferentanalysissearchPubMedMedlineScopusCochranedatabasespublishedJanuary2019identified14eligiblereportsscaleindicatedgoodmethodologicalqualityincludedscore68primaryrevealedactivebettereffectshamspeed[n7standardizedmeandifference189252]6-minutedistance209453Amongsecondarycategory542RivermeadMobilityIndex699timedgo676001whereasnon-significantTinetti441062BergBalanceScale408177analysesanodal4611005dual-hemispheric1090000resultsprovideup-to-datevariableTranscranialstroke:review

Similar Articles

Cited By