Randomized, sham-controlled trial based on transcranial direct current stimulation and wrist robot-assisted integrated treatment on subacute stroke patients: Intermediate results

Is the Combination of Robot-Assisted Therapy and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Useful for Upper Limb Motor Recovery? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Stroke is the third leading cause of disability in the world, and effective rehabilitation is needed to improve lost functionality post-stroke. In this regard, robot-assisted therapy (RAT) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are promising rehabilitative approaches that have been shown to be effective in motor recovery. In the past decade, they have been combined to study whether their combination produces adjuvant and greater effects on stroke recovery. The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of the combined use of RATs and tDCS in the motor recovery of the upper extremities after stroke. After reviewing 227 studies, we included nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in this study. We analysed the methodological quality of all nine RCTs in the meta-analysis. The analysed outcomes were deficit severity, hand dexterity, spasticity, and activity. The addition of tDCS to RAT produced a negligible additional benefit on the effects of upper limb function (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.12), hand dexterity (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.46), spasticity (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.32), and activity (SMD 0.66, 95% CI -1.82 to 3.14). There is no evidence of an additional effect when adding tDCS to RAT for upper limb recovery after stroke. Combining tDCS with RAT does not improve upper limb motor function, spasticity, and/or hand dexterity. Future research should focus on the use of RAT protocols in which the patient is given an active role, focusing on the intensity and dosage, and determining how certain variables influence the success of RAT.

Influence of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Dosage and Associated Therapy on Motor Recovery Post-stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

(1) To determine the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied alone or combined with other therapies on the recovery of motor function after stroke and (2) To determine tDCS dosage effect.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of tDCS with sham, using the Barthel Index (BI), the upper and lower extremity Fugl–Meyer Assessment (FMA), and the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), were retrieved from PubMed, Medline (EBSCO), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from their inception to June 2021. Calculations for each assessment were done for the overall effect and associated therapy accounting for the influence of stroke severity or stimulation parameters.

Results

A total of 31 studies involving metrics of the BI, the upper extremity FMA, the lower extremity FMA, and the MAS were included. tDCS combined with other therapies was beneficial when assessed by the BI (mean difference: 6.8; P < 0.01) and these studies typically had participants in the acute stage. tDCS effects on the upper and lower extremity FMA are unclear and differences between the sham and tDCS groups as well as differences in the associated therapy type combined with tDCS potentially influenced the FMA results. tDCS was not effective compared to sham for the MAS. Stimulation types (e.g., anodal vs. cathodal) did not influence these results and dosage parameters were not associated with the obtained effect sizes. Conventional therapy associated with tDCS typically produced greater effect size than assisted therapy. The influence of stroke severity is unclear.

Conclusion

Potential benefits of tDCS can vary depending on assessment tool used, duration of stroke, and associated therapy. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the potential role of stimulation type and dosage effect after stroke. Future studies should carefully conduct group randomization, control for duration of stroke, and report different motor recovery assessments types.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021290670].

Combined transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and robot-assisted arm training in patients with stroke: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Upper limb motor deficits in patients with severe stroke often remain unresolved over time. Combining transcranial Direct Current Stimulation with robotic therapy is an innovative neurorehabilitation approach that holds promise to improve upper limb impairment after stroke.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of robotic training in combination with transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for treating poststroke upper limb impairment.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE electronic databases were searched using keywords, MeSH terms, and strings: "Stroke"[MeSH] AND ("Upper Extremity"[MeSH] OR "upper limb") AND ("Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation" [MeSH] OR "tDCS") AND ("robotics" OR "robotic therapy"). Full-text articles published in English up to October 2020 were included. Each was rated for quality according to the Physiotherapy Database (PEDro) score: eight out of eleven scored more than 8 points; their results were considered reliable for this review.

RESULTS

Of the total of 171 publications retrieved, 11 met the inclusion criteria. The results of studies that examined the same outcome measures were pooled to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and robot-assisted training in corticomotor excitability, upper limb kinematics, muscle strength and tone, function, disability, and quality of life after stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that transcranial Direct Current Stimulation enhances the effects of robot-assisted arm training in poststroke patients. Further studies with more accurate, comparable and standardized methodology are needed in order to better define the effects of robotic training in combination with transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on poststroke upper limb impairment. Therefore, given the scarce resources available to rehabilitation researches, other, more promising approaches should be given attention.

Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Rehabilitation on Arm and Hand Function in Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that may enhance motor recovery after stroke. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of tDCS combined with rehabilitation on arm and hand function after stroke. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to September 2021. We performed a systematic review of selected randomized controlled trials, and methodological qualities were measured using the PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale. We calculated the standardized mean difference for effect size using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0 software. We selected 28 studies for the systematic review and 20 studies for the meta-analysis. The overall effect size was 0.480 (95% CI [0.307; 0.653], p < 0.05), indicating a moderate effect size of tDCS combined with rehabilitation for upper extremity function in stroke survivors. The tDCS with occupational therapy/physical therapy (0.696; 95% CI [0.390; 1.003], p < 0.05) or virtual reality therapy (0.510; 95% CI [0.111; 0.909], p < 0.05) was also significantly more effective than other treatments. This meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials provides further evidence that tDCS combined with rehabilitation, especially occupational therapy/physical therapy and virtual reality therapy, may benefit upper extremity function of the paretic upper limb in stroke patients.

Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with robotic therapy for upper and lower limb function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation method able to modulate neuronal activity after stroke. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if tDCS combined with robotic therapy (RT) improves limb function after stroke when compared to RT alone.

METHODS

A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to July 15, 2021 was performed. The main outcome was function assessed with the Fugl-Meyer motor assessment for upper extremities (FM/ue) and 10-m walking test (10MWT) for the lower limbs. As secondary outcomes, strength was assessed with the Motricity Index (MI) or Medical Research Council scale (MRC), spasticity with the modified Ashworth scale (MAS), functional independence with the Barthel Index (BI), and kinematic parameters.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included for analysis (n = 368 enrolled participants). The results showed a non-significant effect for tDCS combined with RT to improve upper limb function [standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 0.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 0.35-0.11)]. However, a positive effect of the combined therapy was observed in the lower limb function (SMD = 0.48; 95% CI: - 0.15-1.12). Significant results favouring tDCS combined with RT were not found in strength (SMD = - 0.15; 95% CI: - 0.4-0.1), spasticity [mean difference (MD) =  - 0.15; 95% CI: - 0.8-0.5)], functional independence (MD = 2.5; 95% CI: - 1.9-6.9) or velocity of movement (SMD = 0.06; 95% CI: - 0.3-0.5) with a "moderate" or "low" recommendation level according to the GRADE guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Current findings suggest that tDCS combined with RT does not improve upper limb function, strength, spasticity, functional independence or velocity of movement after stroke. However, tDCS may enhance the effects of RT alone for lower limb function. tDCS parameters and the stage or type of stroke injury could be crucial factors that determine the effectiveness of this therapy.

Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor recovery in adult patients with stroke, taking into account the parameters that could influence the motor recovery responses. The second aim was to identify the best tDCS parameters and recommendations available based on the enhanced motor recovery demonstrated by the analyzed studies. Our systematic review was performed by searching full-text articles published before February 18, 2019 in the PubMed database. Different methods of applying tDCS in association with several complementary therapies were identified. Studies investigating the motor recovery effects of tDCS in adult patients with stroke were considered. Studies investigating different neurologic conditions and psychiatric disorders or those not meeting our methodologic criteria were excluded. The main parameters and outcomes of tDCS treatments are reported. There is not a robust concordance among the study outcomes with regard to the enhancement of motor recovery associated with the clinical application of tDCS. This is mainly due to the heterogeneity of clinical data, tDCS approaches, combined interventions, and outcome measurements. tDCS could be an effective approach to promote adaptive plasticity in the stroke population with significant positive premotor and postmotor rehabilitation effects. Future studies with larger sample sizes and high-quality studies with a better standardization of stimulation protocols are needed to improve the study quality, further corroborate our results, and identify the optimal tDCS protocols.

The adjunct of transcranial direct current stimulation to Robot-assisted therapy in upper limb post-stroke treatment

Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) and robot-assisted therapy (RAT) proved to be promising interventions in post-stroke rehabilitation. However, the effects of combining the two treatments are not significantly clear. To determine the effects of combined therapy using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with robot-assisted therapy (RAT) in the impairment of the upper limb in stroke rehabilitation. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Trial Registries were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials in May 2020. As the outcome, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment score (FMS) was used. A pairwise and a network meta-analysis were performed. 5 RCTs with RAT versus RAT + tDCS groups and 21 RCTs with RAT versus the control group with 892 people were analysed. Of these studies, 10 RCTs evaluated acute-subacute (<8 weeks) people, while 16 chronic people. By analysing the FMS with a pair-wise meta-analysis, we demonstrate significant improvements only in the RAT alone compared to the control (acute-subacute, SMD:4.09 (1.31, 6.87) and chronic, SMD:2.22 (0.99, 3.45)). Instead, performing a network meta-analysis, through an analysis of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) we report a ranking of the effectiveness of the interventions. We assess SUCRA in acute-subacute stroke: Control:0.23, RAT + tDCS:0.31, RAT:0.96 and in chronic stroke: Control:0.06, RAT + tDCS:0.62, RAT:0.82. RAT is, respectively, 96% and 82% likely to be the best-ranked treatment. Despite the limitations, this network meta-analysis appears to demonstrate through the rank of interventions that adding tDCS to RAT is not useful in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation.

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

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.

OBJECTIVE

We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 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, and 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 the 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 levels of evidence in some conditions, it must 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.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Combined With Wrist Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation on Motor Recovery in Subacute Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Both transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and wrist robot-assisted training have demonstrated to be promising approaches for stroke rehabilitation. However, the effects of the combination of the two treatments in subacute stroke patients are not clear yet. To investigate the effectiveness of combining tDCS and wrist robot-assisted rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients in comparison with the wrist robotic training only, a single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial was performed with 40 subacute stroke patients (25 ± 7 days from stroke onset time). Patients were randomly assigned to experimental group (EG, n = 20 ) where patients receive real tDCS [2 mA, 20 min, and the anodal electrode on the primary motor cortex-M1-area of the affected hemisphere (C3/C4 in the 10-20 EEG system and the cathodal electrode on the contralateral orbit bone)] or control group (CG, n = 20 ) where patients receive sham tDCS (5 s) during wrist robotic rehabilitation training. The effects of the treatment were evaluated by means of the upper extremity, shoulder-elbow, and wrist subsections of the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale, Modified Ashworth Scale, Motricity Index and Box and Block Test together with kinematic parameters. One out of 20 patients in the CG did not complete the treatment. All the clinical outcome measures except the Modified Ashworth Scale showed a significant increase after the treatment in both groups. However, no significant difference in the average changes after treatment between groups was observed. The movement velocity and smoothness showed significant increases after the training, even though no significant difference between groups was observed. The combination of wrist robot-assisted training and tDCS did not show additional effects in comparison with wrist robot-assisted training only in subacute stroke patients. The negative results found in this paper are specific for the specific intervention. The timing of delivering the tDCS and the robot-assisted therapy has to be deeply investigated to enhance the effectiveness of the training.