Search

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation for post-stroke spasticity and to assess its evidence using a meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PubMed), PEDro, CBM, CNKI and Wan Fang Data from their inception to June 2021 for randomised clinical trials published in English or Chinese, which aimed to explore the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on post-stroke spasticity. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and evaluated the methodological quality and overall evidence quality. Results: Thirteen randomised clinical trials comprising 924 patients were included, 12 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that anodal stimulation (standard mean difference = −0.91; [95% CI; −1.63 to −0.19]) combined with other therapies was more effective in improving upper limb spasticity. More than 20 minutes of stimulation were found to be effective in improving spasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation was superior to the control treatments for subacute (standard mean difference = −1.16; −1.75 to −0.57) and chronic stroke (standard mean difference = −0.68; −1.13 to −0.22) patients aged under 60 (standard mean difference = −1.07; −1.54 to −0.60). No severe adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. Conclusions: Low-quality evidence demonstrates that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation as an adjunct is effective and safe in reducing upper limb post-stroke spasticity when applied for more than 20 minutes in subacute and chronic stroke survivors aged under 60. Further high-quality studies are needed to explore its long-term efficacy and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Infarct size is associated with stroke severity in clinical studies, so reducing it has become an important target and research hotspot in the treatment of ischemic stroke. Some preclinical studies have shown transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) reduced infarct size and improved neurological deficit, but others have not found beneficial effects. Besides, the optimal pattern of tDCS for ischemic stroke remains largely unknown. To shed light on the current circumstance and future research directions, the systematic review evaluated the effect of different tDCS paradigms in reducing infarct size and improving neurological deficit in rodent models of ischemic stroke and assessed the methodological quality of current literature. We searched the MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from their inception to August 18, 2021, to identify studies evaluating the effects of tDCS in rodent models of ischemic stroke. Eight studies were included, of which seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed cathodal tDCS, rather than anodal tDCS, reduced infarct size mainly measured by tetrazolium chloride and magnetic resonance imaging (standardized mean difference: −1.13; 95% CI: −1.72, −0.53; p = 0.0002) and improved neurological deficit assessed by a modified neurological severity score (standardized mean difference: −2.10; 95% CI: −3.78, −0.42; p = 0.01) in an early stage of focal ischemic stroke in rodent models. Subgroup analyses showed effects of cathodal tDCS on infarct size were not varied by ischemia duration (ischemia for 1, 1.5, and 2 h or permanent ischemia) and anesthesia (involving isoflurane and ketamine). The overall quality of studies included was low, thus the results must be interpreted cautiously. Published studies suggest that cathodal tDCS may be a promising avenue to explore for augmenting rehabilitation from focal ischemic stroke. Considering the methodological limitations, it is unreliable to blindly extrapolate the animal data to the clinical practice. Future research is needed to investigate the mechanism of tDCS in a randomized and blinded fashion in clinically relevant stroke models, such as elderly animals, female animals, and animals with comorbidities, to find an optimal treatment protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]