Search

Background. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system and the main cause of disability in young people. Drug therapy cannot completely control many disabling symptoms in MS, such as cramps, pain, depression, and cognitive impairment. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technology can be used as a tool to regulate changes in cortical excitability and plasticity in MS patients, thereby improving the disability symptoms that affect such patients. Aims. Our objective was to explore the effectiveness and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation in the treatment of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis. Methods. We performed a literature review in different databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Medline, Google Scholar. Full text articles that used NIBS for exercise performance improvement in athletes were included (only articles in English were found). We searched for articles available in each database until 30 October 2019. We used articles published in journals, randomized or pseudo-randomized, sham-controlled clinical trials to evaluate the effects of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS). The main result is the fatigue score before and after stimulation; the secondary result is the adverse event. Results. The general inverse variance method was used to aggregate data from cross-group and parallel group studies. A total of 14 studies (tDCS 11, TMS 2 and tRNS 1) which recruited 186 patients were included in the study. No qualified tACS, transcranial electrical therapy stimulation or non-invasive cortical electrical stimulation study with reduced impedance was found. The short-term and long-term therapeutic effects are for tDCS, TMS is significant, and TMS and tRNS are not superior to sham stimulation. Existing evidence supports the effectiveness of the 1.5 mA subgroup and the bilateral S1 subgroup of tDCS. Adverse events are mild and transient, but are comparable between real and sham stimulation. Conclusions. tDCS is a safe and effective way to treat fatigue in MS patients. However, there is further research needed to confirm our results in a large population and investigate the effectiveness of other NIBS subtypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. When transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was reintroduced as a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, it had been known for more than 50 years that the main mechanism of action was the sub-threshold regulation of neuronal membrane potential, which depended on changing the cortical excitability and activity through the current flow of the target neuron. In this review we concentrated on the progress made for tDCS in the last few years in sports, which so far has partially found entrance into the design of clinical studies, and on results obtained in recently conducted clinical pilot studies. Aims. Our objective was to analyze the effects of tDCS în sport exercises, for normal or high-level practitioners. Methods. We performed a literature review în different databases: PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, SportDiscus, Google Scholar. Full text articles that used tDCS for exercise performance improvement in athletes were included (only articles in English were found). We searched for articles available in each database until 15 January 2018. We used articles published in journals, randomized sham controlled trials comparing anodal stimulation and cathodal stimulation to a sham / control for performance in isometric, isokinetic or dynamic strength exercise and whole-body exercise. Results. We included 23 studies that met our selection criteria, in which tDCS produced changes in cycling training for: the whole body (9 articles), for muscle strength in isometric exercise (7 articles), for maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC) (2 articles), for isokinetic exercises (3 articles) and during dynamic exercise (2 articles). Conclusions. The anodal stimulation (a-tDCS) on the motor cortex (M1) had better results than sham stimulation especially for cycling exercises; consequently, more studies and attempts of different montages are needed. Interest in tDCS is constantly growing, as evidenced by the growing number of studies in recent years. Consequently, positive results will appear more and more with the discovery of optimal stimulation parameters. In other words research must continue for this therapy of the future to become a consistent therapeutic alternative, especially in performance athletes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]