Raymer AM, Johnson RK. Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as an Adjuvant to Aphasia Treatment Following Stroke: Evidence From Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY 2024:1-13. [PMID:
38306506 DOI:
10.1044/2024_ajslp-23-00312]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulation tool to amplify neural excitability and enhance outcomes associated with speech-language therapy (SLT). Stimulation currents to the left and right hemispheres vary in applying anodal (excitatory), cathodal (inhibitory), or bihemispheric signals. Several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) have summarized the large literature examining tDCS for aphasia rehabilitation. The purpose of this project was to appraise the quality of SRs and MAs of tDCS for aphasia and examine the weight of the evidence for language outcomes in individuals with aphasia beyond SLT alone.
METHOD
We searched four databases for SRs/MAs examining effects of tDCS for poststroke aphasia. We identified 16 reviews, with nine that incorporated MA to quantify results. Two reviewers reliably coded articles for methodological rigor using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Version 2). We then summarized findings of the 16 reviews.
RESULTS
The AMSTAR 2 appraisal criteria suggest that critical weaknesses were noted among all reviews except those by Elsner et al. (2015, 2019). Reviews summarized three to 48 studies, as some included only randomized crossover trials and others included all trial designs. All SRs and one MA reported improvements following tDCS stimulation for general aphasia abilities and measures of repetition and speech fluency. Five recent MAs reported significant naming improvements following tDCS using all stimulation arrays. No tDCS effects were noted for comprehension measures.
CONCLUSIONS
As the tDCS literature matured, the conclusions of MAs merged with earlier SRs reporting statistically positive benefits over SLT alone. Most consistent results are reported for naming measures, leaving some to question the clinical significance of tDCS effects for functional measures of aphasia recovery. Although the tDCS literature is expansive, important questions remain before the technique can be confidently recommended for clinical practice.
Collapse