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

Combining Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With Hand Robotic Rehabilitation in Chronic Stroke Patients: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the impact of combining transcranial direct current stimulation with end-effector robot-assisted treatment on upper limb function, spasticity, and hand dexterity in chronic stroke patients.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, double-blind randomized trial with 20 equally allocated stroke patients. The experimental group received dual transcranial direct current stimulation (anode over affected M1, cathode over contralateral M1) alongside robot-assisted treatment, while the control group received sham transcranial direct current stimulation with the same electrode placement + robot-assisted treatment. Each patient underwent 20 combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted treatment sessions. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer Upper Limb motor score, with secondary outcomes including AMADEO kinematic measures, Action Research Arm Test, and Functional Independence Measure. Assessments were conducted at baseline, after rehabilitation, and 3 mos later.

RESULTS

Combining bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation with robot-assisted treatment did not yield additional improvements in Fugl-Meyer Upper Limb motor score, Functional Independence Measure, or Action Research Arm Test scores among stroke patients. However, the real transcranial direct current stimulation group showed enhanced finger flexion in the affected hand based on AMADEO kinematic measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to robot-assisted treatment did not result in significant overall functional improvements in chronic stroke patients. However, a benefit was observed in finger flexion of the affected hand.

Comparative efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation protocols on upper-extremity motor function and activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

The objectives of the study were to systematically evaluate the rehabilitation effect of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on upper extremity motor function and activities of daily living in stroke patients and to prioritize various stimulation protocols for reliable evidence-based medical recommendations in patients with upper extremity motor dysfunction after stroke. Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM were searched to collect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of NIBS to improve upper extremity motor function in stroke patients. The retrieval time was from the establishment of all databases to May 2023. According to the Cochrane system evaluation manual, the quality of the included studies was evaluated, and the data were extracted. Statistical analysis was carried out by using RevMan 5.3, R 4.3.0, and Stata 17.0 software. Finally, 94 RCTs were included, with a total of 5546 patients. Meta-analysis showed that NIBS improved the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) score (mean difference (MD) = 6.51, 95% CI 6.20 ~ 6.82, P < 0.05), MBI score (MD = 7.69, 95% CI 6.57 ~ 8.81, P < 0.05), ARAT score (MD = 5.06, 95% CI 3.85 ~ 6.27, P < 0.05), and motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude. The modified Ashworth scale score (MD =  - 0.37, 95% CI - 0.60 to - 0.14, P < 0.05), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (MD =  - 2.17, 95% CI - 3.32 to - 1.11, P < 0.05), incubation period of MEP (MD =  - 0.72, 95% CI - 1.06 to - 0.38, P < 0.05), and central motor conduction time (MD =  - 0.90, 95% CI - 1.29 to - 0.50, P < 0.05) were decreased in stroke patients. Network meta-analysis showed that the order of interventions in improving FMA scores from high to low was anodal-transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 83.7%) > cathodal-tDCS (SUCRA = 80.2%) > high-frequency (HF)-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (SUCRA = 68.5%) > low-frequency (LF)-rTMS (SUCRA = 66.5%) > continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) (SUCRA = 54.2%) > bilateral-tDCS (SUCRA = 45.2%) > intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) (SUCRA = 34.1%) > sham-NIBS (SUCRA = 16.0%) > CR (SUCRA = 1.6%). In terms of improving MBI scores, the order from high to low was anodal-tDCS (SUCRA = 88.7%) > cathodal-tDCS (SUCRA = 85.4%) > HF-rTMS (SUCRA = 63.4%) > bilateral-tDCS (SUCRA = 56.0%) > LF-rTMS (SUCRA = 54.2%) > iTBS (SUCRA = 32.4%) > sham-NIBS (SUCRA = 13.8%) > CR (SUCRA = 6.1%). NIBS can effectively improve upper extremity motor function and activities of daily living after stroke. Among the various NIBS protocols, anodal-tDCS demonstrated the most significant intervention effect, followed by cathodal-tDCS and HF-rTMS.

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy in non-invasive neuromodulation

ABSTRACT

Non-invasive cerebral neuromodulation technologies are essential for the reorganization of cerebral neural networks, which have been widely applied in the field of central neurological diseases, such as stroke, Parkinson's disease, and mental disorders. Although significant advances have been made in neuromodulation technologies, the identification of optimal neurostimulation parameters including the cortical target, duration, and inhibition or excitation pattern is still limited due to the lack of guidance for neural circuits. Moreover, the neural mechanism underlying neuromodulation for improved behavioral performance remains poorly understood. Recently, advancements in neuroimaging have provided insight into neuromodulation techniques. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy, as a novel non-invasive optical brain imaging method, can detect brain activity by measuring cerebral hemodynamics with the advantages of portability, high motion tolerance, and anti-electromagnetic interference. Coupling functional near-infrared spectroscopy with neuromodulation technologies offers an opportunity to monitor the cortical response, provide real-time feedback, and establish a closed-loop strategy integrating evaluation, feedback, and intervention for neurostimulation, which provides a theoretical basis for development of individualized precise neurorehabilitation. We aimed to summarize the advantages of functional near-infrared spectroscopy and provide an overview of the current research on functional near-infrared spectroscopy in transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial electrical stimulation, neurofeedback, and brain-computer interfaces. Furthermore, the future perspectives and directions for the application of functional near-infrared spectroscopy in neuromodulation are summarized. In conclusion, functional near-infrared spectroscopy combined with neuromodulation may promote the optimization of central neural reorganization to achieve better functional recovery from central nervous system diseases.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for upper extremity motor dysfunction in poststroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in poststroke patients with upper extremity motor dysfunction using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of both active and sham stimulation up until January 27, 2024.

REVIEW METHODS

Efficacy, including the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Action Research Arm Test, Barthel Index, and safety, were assessed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies with 1555 participants were included. Transcranial direct current stimulation proved effective in improving upper extremity motor function (standardized mean difference = 0.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.32, P < 0.001) and Barthel Index (mean difference = 4.65, 95% confidence interval: 2.82-6.49, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed the highest transcranial direct current stimulation efficacy in patients with subacute stroke. Both anodal and cathodal stimulation were effective against upper extremity motor dysfunction. C3/C4 was the most effective stimulus target. Optimal stimulation parameters included stimulus current densities <0.057 mA/cm2 for 20-30 min and <30 sessions. Adverse effects and dropouts during follow-up showed that transcranial direct current stimulation is safe and feasible.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that both anodal and cathodal stimulation were significantly effective in subacute stroke patients, particularly when preceding other treatments and when C3/C4 is targeted.

The Effectiveness of Paired Associative Stimulation on Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Scoping Review

Paired associative stimulation (PAS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique combining transcranial magnetic stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation. PAS allows connections between cortical areas and peripheral nerves (C/P PAS) or between cortical regions (C/C PAS) to be strengthened or weakened by spike-timing-dependent neural plasticity mechanisms. Since PAS modulates both neurophysiological features and motor performance, there is growing interest in its application in neurorehabilitation. We aimed to synthesize evidence on the motor rehabilitation role of PAS in stroke patients. We performed a literature search following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Framework. Eight studies were included: one investigated C/C PAS between the cerebellum and the affected primary motor area (M1), seven applied C/P PAS over the lesional, contralesional, or both M1. Seven studies evaluated the outcome on upper limb and one on lower limb motor recovery. Although several studies omit crucial methodological details, PAS highlighted effects mainly on corticospinal excitability, and, more rarely, an improvement in motor performance. However, most studies failed to prove a correlation between neurophysiological changes and motor improvement. Although current studies seem to suggest a role of PAS in post-stroke rehabilitation, their heterogeneity and limited number do not yet allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Optimizing electrode placement for transcranial direct current stimulation in nonsuperficial cortical regions: a computational modeling study

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique for modulating neuronal excitability by sending a weak current through electrodes attached to the scalp. For decades, the conventional tDCS electrode for stimulating the superficial cortex has been widely reported. However, the investigation of the optimal electrode to effectively stimulate the nonsuperficial cortex is still lacking. In the current study, the optimal tDCS electrode montage that can deliver the maximum electric field to nonsuperficial cortical regions is investigated. Two finite element head models were used for computational simulation to determine the optimal montage for four different nonsuperficial regions: the left foot motor cortex, the left dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), the left medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC), and the primary visual cortex (V1). Our findings showed a good consistency in the optimal montage between two models, which led to the anode and cathode being attached to C4-C3 for the foot motor, F4-F3 for the dmPFC, Fp2-F7 for the mOFC, and Oz-Cz for V1. Our suggested montages are expected to enhance the overall effectiveness of stimulation of nonsuperficial cortical areas.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13534-023-00335-2.

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.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques for the Improvement of Upper Limb Motor Function and Performance in Activities of Daily Living After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NiBS) such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), theta-burst stimulation (TBS), and transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) in upper limb stroke rehabilitation.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2010 to June 2022.

DATA SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of "tDCS", "rTMS", "TBS", or "taVNS" on upper limb motor function and performance in activities of daily livings (ADLs) after stroke.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

87 RCTs with 3750 participants were included. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that all NiBS except continuous TBS (cTBS) and cathodal tDCS were significantly more efficacious than sham stimulation for motor function (standardized mean difference [SMD] range 0.42-1.20), whereas taVNS, anodal tDCS, and both low and high frequency rTMS were significantly more efficacious than sham stimulation for ADLs (SMD range 0.54-0.99). NMA showed that taVNS was more effective than cTBS (SMD:1.00; 95% CI (0.02-2.02)), cathodal tDCS (SMD:1.07; 95% CI (0.21-1.92)), and Physical rehabilitation alone (SMD:1.46; 95% CI (0.59-2.33)) for improving motor function. P-score found that taVNS is best ranked treatment in improving motor function (SMD: 1.20; 95% CI (0.46-1.95)) and ADLs (SMD:1.20; 95% CI (0.45-1.94)) after stroke. After taVNS, excitatory stimulation protocols (intermittent TBS, anodal tDCS, and HF-rTMS) are most effective in improving motor function and ADLs after acute/sub-acute (SMD range 0.53-1.63) and chronic stroke (SMD range 0.39-1.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that excitatory stimulation protocols are the most promising intervention in improving upper limb motor function and performance in ADLs. taVNS appeared to be a promising intervention for stroke patients, but further large RCTs are required to confirm its relative superiority.

Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation in combination with robotic therapy in upper limb impairments in people with stroke: a systematic review

Background

Stroke is a devastating condition, which not only affects patients’ activity, but also is a primary reason for the psychosocial impact on them, their caregivers, and the healthcare system. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates cortical activity, encouraging neuro-modulation and motor recovery in stroke rehabilitation. Robotic therapy (RT) provides repetitive, high-intensity, interactive, task-specific intervention and can measure changes while providing feedback to people with stroke.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate and summarize the scientific literature systematically to investigate the combined effect of tDCS and RT in patients with stroke.

Methods

Four databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, & PEDro) were searched for clinical trials investigating the effect of RT and tDCS in stroke patients with upper limb impairment. PEDro scale was used for the quality assessment of included studies.

Results

The search yielded 208 articles. A total of 213 patients with stroke who had upper limb impairment were studied. In the majority of the trials, RT combined with tDCS lead to positive improvement in various measures of upper limb function and spasticity.

Conclusions

RT along with tDCS is an effective mode of rehabilitation, although no additional effects of tDCS plus RT in comparison with RT alone were reported. Large, robust studies are needed, so that health care providers and researchers can make better decisions about merging tDCS and RT in stroke rehabilitation settings in the future.

Patient-tailored transcranial direct current stimulation to improve stroke rehabilitation: study protocol of a randomized sham-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients do not fully regain motor function after ischemic stroke. Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) targeting the motor cortex may improve motor outcome as an add-on intervention to physical rehabilitation. However, beneficial effects on motor function vary largely among patients within and across TDCS trials. In addition to a large heterogeneity of study designs, this variability may be caused by the fact that TDCS was given as a one-size-fits-all protocol without accounting for anatomical differences between subjects. The efficacy and consistency of TDCS might be improved by a patient-tailored design that ensures precise targeting of a physiologically relevant area with an appropriate current strength.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial, patients with subacute ischemic stroke and residual upper-extremity paresis will receive two times 20 min of focal TDCS of ipsilesional primary motor hand area (M1-HAND) during supervised rehabilitation training three times weekly for 4 weeks. Anticipated 60 patients will be randomly assigned to active or sham TDCS of ipsilesional M1-HAND, using a central anode and four equidistant cathodes. The placement of the electrode grid on the scalp and current strength at each cathode will be personalized based on individual electrical field models to induce an electrical current of 0.2 V/m in the cortical target region resulting in current strengths between 1 and 4 mA. Primary endpoint will be the difference in change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score between active TDCS and sham at the end of the intervention. Exploratory endpoints will include UE-FMA at 12 weeks. Effects of TDCS on motor network connectivity and interhemispheric inhibition will be assessed with functional MRI and transcranial magnetic stimulation.

DISCUSSION

The study will show the feasibility and test the efficacy of personalized, multi-electrode anodal TDCS of M1-HAND in patients with subacute stroke patients with upper-extremity paresis. Concurrent multimodal brain mapping will shed light into the mechanisms of action of therapeutic personalized TDCS of M1-HAND. Together, the results from this trial may inform future personalized TDCS studies in patients with focal neurological deficits after stroke.

Effects of bihemispheric transcranial direct current stimulation on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients: a double-blind, randomized sham-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bihemispheric transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) can simultaneously modulate bilateral corticospinal excitability and interhemispheric interaction. However, how tDCS affects subacute stroke recovery remains unclear. We investigated the effects of bihemispheric tDCS on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients.

METHODS

We enrolled subacute inpatients who had first-ever ischemic stroke at subcortical regions and moderate-to-severe baseline Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score 2-56. Participants between 14 and 28 days after stroke were double-blind, randomly assigned (1:1) to receive real (n = 13) or sham (n = 14) bihemispheric tDCS (with ipsilesional M1 anode and contralesional M1 cathode, 20 min, 2 mA) during task practice twice daily for 20 sessions in two weeks. Residual integrity of the ipsilesional corticospinal tract was stratified between groups. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in FMA-UE score from baseline (responder as an increase ≥ 10). The secondary measures included changes in the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), FMA-Lower Extremity (FMA-LE) and explorative resting-state MRI functional connectivity (FC) of target regions after intervention and three months post-stroke.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven participants completed the study without significant adverse effects. Nineteen patients (70%) had no recordable baseline motor-evoked potentials (MEP-negative) from the paretic forearm. Compared with the sham group, the real tDCS group showed enhanced improvement of FMA-UE after intervention (p < 0.01, effect size η² = 0.211; responder rate: 77% vs. 36%, p = 0.031), which sustained three months post-stroke (p < 0.01), but not ARAT. Interestingly, in the MEP-negative subgroup analysis, the FMA-UE improvement remained but delayed. Additionally, the FMA-LE improvement after real tDCS was not significantly greater until three months post-stroke (p < 0.01). We found that the individual FMA-UE improvements after real tDCS were associated with bilateral intrahemispheric, rather than interhemispheric, FC strengths in the targeted cortices, while the improvements after sham tDCS were associated with predominantly ipsilesional FC changes after adjustment for age and sex (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Bihemispheric tDCS during task-oriented training may facilitate motor recovery in subacute stroke patients, even with compromised corticospinal tract integrity. Further studies are warranted for tDCS efficacy and network-specific neuromodulation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: (ID: NCT02731508).

Effectiveness of robot-assisted arm exercise on arm and hand function in stroke survivors - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To examine the treatment effect of commercially available robotic-assisted devices, compared to traditional occupational- and physiotherapy on arm and hand function in persons with stroke. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCT's) involving persons with stroke of all ages and robot-assisted exercise as method for arm and hand function, compared to traditional therapy methods were included. Three authors performed the selection independently. The quality of evidence across studies was assessed using GRADE. Results: Eighteen RCT's were included in the study. A random effects meta-analysis showed a statistically significantly higher treatment effect in the robotic-assisted exercise group (p=<0.0001) compared to the traditional treatment group, with a total effect size of 0.44 (CI = 0.22-0.65). Heterogeneity was high, measured with I2 of 65%). Subgroup analyses showed no significant effects of the type of robotic device, treatment frequency or duration of intervention. Discussion and conclusion: Even though the analysis showed significant improvement in arm and hand function in favor of the robotic-assisted exercise group, the results in this systematic review should be interpreted with caution. This is due to high heterogeneity among the studies included and the presence of possible publication bias. Results of this study highlight the need for larger and more methodological robust RCT's, with a focus on reporting training intensity during robotic exercise.

Effects of robotic upper limb treatment after stroke on cognitive patterns: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robotic therapy (RT) has been internationally recognized for the motor rehabilitation of the upper limb. Although it seems that RT can stimulate and promote neuroplasticity, the effectiveness of robotics in restoring cognitive deficits has been considered only in a few recent studies.

OBJECTIVE

To verify whether, in the current state of the literature, cognitive measures are used as inclusion or exclusion criteria and/or outcomes measures in robotic upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies eligible were identified through PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to March 2021.

RESULTS

Eighty-one studies were considered in this systematic review. Seventy-three studies have at least a cognitive inclusion or exclusion criteria, while only seven studies assessed cognitive outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Despite the high presence of cognitive instruments used for inclusion/exclusion criteria their heterogeneity did not allow the identification of a guideline for the evaluation of patients in different stroke stages. Therefore, although the heterogeneity and the low percentage of studies that included cognitive outcomes, seemed that the latter were positively influenced by RT in post-stroke rehabilitation. Future larger RCTs are needed to outline which cognitive scales are most suitable and their cut-off, as well as what cognitive outcome measures to use in the various stages of post-stroke rehabilitation.

Combined robot motor assistance with neural circuit-based virtual reality (NeuCir-VR) lower extremity rehabilitation training in patients after stroke: a study protocol for a single-centre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Improving lower extremity motor function is the focus and difficulty of post-stroke rehabilitation treatment. More recently, robot-assisted and virtual reality (VR) training are commonly used in post-stroke rehabilitation and are considered feasible treatment methods. Here, we developed a rehabilitation system combining robot motor assistance with neural circuit-based VR (NeuCir-VR) rehabilitation programme involving procedural lower extremity rehabilitation with reward mechanisms, from muscle strength training, posture control and balance training to simple and complex ground walking training. The study aims to explore the effectiveness and neurological mechanisms of combining robot motor assistance and NeuCir-VR lower extremity rehabilitation training in patients after stroke.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centre, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial. 40 patients with lower extremity hemiparesis after stroke will be recruited and randomly divided into a control group (combined robot assistance and VR training) and an intervention group (combined robot assistance and NeuCir-VR training) by the ratio of 1:1. Each group will receive five 30 min sessions per week for 4 weeks. The primary outcome will be Fugl-Meyer assessment of the lower extremity. Secondary outcomes will include Berg Balance Scale, Modified Ashworth Scale and functional connectivity measured by resting-state functional MRI. Outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1) and follow-ups (T2-T4).

ETHICS, REGISTRATION AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Shanghai University of Chinese Traditional Medicine (Grant No. 2019-014). The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal or at a conference.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2100052133.

Improving Upper Limb and Gait Rehabilitation Outcomes in Post-Stroke Patients: A Scoping Review on the Additional Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation When Combined with Robot-Aided Rehabilitation

Robot-aided rehabilitation (RAR) and non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are the two main interventions for post-stroke rehabilitation. The efficacy of both approaches in combination has not been well established yet. The importance of coupling these interventions, which both enhance brain plasticity to promote recovery, lies in augmenting the rehabilitation potential to constrain the limitation in daily living activities and the quality of life following stroke. This review aimed to evaluate the evidence of NIBS coupled with RAR in improving rehabilitation outcomes of upper limb and gait motor impairment in adult individuals with stroke. We included 18 clinical trials in this review. All studies were highly heterogeneous concerning the technical characteristics of robotic devices and NIBS protocols. However, the studies reported a global improvement in body structure and function and activity limitation for the upper limb, which were non-significant between the active and control groups. Concerning gait training protocols, the active group outperformed the control group in improving walking capacity and recovery. According to this review, NIBS and RAR in combination are promising but not yet largely recommendable as a systematic approach for stroke rehabilitation as there is not enough data about this. Therefore, more homogenous clinical trials are required, pointing out the best characteristics of the combined therapeutic protocols.

Barriers to Enrollment in Post-Stroke Brain Stimulation in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Population

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Brain stimulation is an adjuvant strategy to promote rehabilitation after stroke. Here, we evaluated the influence of inclusion/exclusion criteria on enrollment in a transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) trial in the context of a racially/ethnically diverse acute stroke service at University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW).

METHODS

3124 (59.7 ± 14.5 years) racially/ethnically diverse (38.4% non-Hispanic white, (W), Hispanic (H) 22%, African American (AA) 33.5%, Asian (A) 2.3%) patients were screened in the acute stroke service at UTSW. Demographics, stroke characteristics, and reasons for exclusion were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

2327 (74.5%) patients had a verified stroke. Only 44 of them (1.9%) were eligible. Causes for exclusion included in order of importance: (1) magnitude of upper extremity (UE) motor impairment, (2) prior strokes (s), (3) hemorrhagic stroke, (4) psychiatric condition or inability to follow instructions, and (5) old age, of these (2) and (4) were more common in AA patients but not in other minorities. 31 of the 44 eligible individuals were enrolled (W 1.68%, H 1.37%, AA .77%, A 3.774%). 90.5% of verified stroke patients did not exhibit contraindications for stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

3 main conclusions emerged: (a) The main limitations for inclusion in brain stimulation trials of motor recovery were magnitude of UE motor impairments and stroke lesion characteristics, (b) most stroke patients could be stimulated with tDCS without safety concerns and (c) carefully tailored inclusion criteria could increase diversity in enrollment.Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01007136.

Non-invasive transcranial electrical brain stimulation guided by functional near-infrared spectroscopy for targeted neuromodulation: A review

One of the primary goals in cognitive neuroscience is to understand the neural mechanisms on which cognition is based. Researchers are trying to find how cognitive mechanisms are related to oscillations generated due to brain activity. The research focused on this topic has been considerably aided by developing non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. The dynamics of brain networks and the resultant behavior can be affected by non-invasive brain stimulation techniques, which make their use a focus of interest in many experiments and clinical fields. One essential non-invasive brain stimulation technique is transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), subdivided into transcranial direct and alternating current stimulation. tES has recently become more well-known because of the effective results achieved in treating chronic conditions. In addition, there has been exceptional progress in the interpretation and feasibility of tES techniques. Summarizing the beneficial effects of tES, this article provides an updated depiction of what has been accomplished to date, brief history, and the open questions that need to be addressed in the future. An essential issue in the field of tES is stimulation duration. This review briefly covers the stimulation durations that have been utilized in the field while monitoring the brain using functional-near infrared spectroscopy-based brain imaging.

Rehabilitation Interventions Combined with Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Upper Limb Motor Function in Stroke Patients

(1) Background: This systematic review aimed to focus on the effects of rehabilitation interventions combined with noninvasive brain stimulation on upper limb motor function in stroke patients. (2) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were used for the literature research. Articles were searched using the following terms: "Stroke OR CVA OR cerebrovascular accident" AND "upper limb OR upper extremity" AND "NIBS OR Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation" OR "rTMS" OR "repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation" OR "tDCS" OR "transcranial direct current stimulation" AND "RCT" OR randomized control trial." In total, 12 studies were included in the final analysis. (3) Results: Analysis using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale for qualitative evaluation of the literature rated eight articles as "excellent" and four as "good." Combined rehabilitation interventions included robotic therapy, motor imagery using brain-computer interaction, sensory control, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, task-oriented approach, task-oriented mirror therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and behavior observation therapy. (4) Conclusions: Although it is difficult to estimate the recovery of upper limb motor function in stroke patients treated with noninvasive brain stimulation alone, a combination of a task-oriented approach, occupational therapy, action observation, wrist robot-assisted rehabilitation, and physical therapy can be effective.

Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation on Post-Stroke Spasticity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

In recent years, the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) for the therapeutic effect of post-stroke spasticity has been explored. There are various NIBS methods depending on the stimulation modality, site and parameters. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of NIBS on spasticity in patients after stroke. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PUBMED (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) were searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before December 2021. Two independent researchers screened relevant articles and extracted data. This meta-analysis included 14 articles, and all included articles included 18 RCT datasets. The results showed that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (MD = −0.40, [95% CI]: −0.56 to −0.25, p < 0.01) had a significant effect on improving spasticity, in which low-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS) (MD = −0.51, [95% CI]: −0.78 to −0.24, p < 0.01) and stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere (MD = −0.58, [95% CI]: −0.80 to −0.36, p < 0.01) were beneficial on Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) in patients with post-stroke spasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (MD = −0.65, [95% CI]: −1.07 to −0.22, p < 0.01) also had a significant impact on post-stroke rehabilitation, with anodal stimulation (MD = −0.74, [95% CI]: −1.35 to −0.13, p < 0.05) being more effective in improving spasticity in patients. This meta-analysis revealed moderate evidence that NIBS reduces spasticity after stroke and may promote recovery in stroke survivors. Future studies investigating the mechanisms of NIBS in addressing spasticity are warranted to further support the clinical application of NIBS in post-stroke spasticity.

The Adjunct of Electric Neurostimulation to Rehabilitation Approaches in Upper Limb Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This review analyzed the current evidence and the potential for the application of electric neurostimulation such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in upper limb stroke rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using network meta-analysis (NMA), searching the following data bases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, using specific keywords, from January 2010 to April 2021, and assessing the effects of "tDCS" or "VNS" combined with other therapies on upper limb motor function and activities of daily living (ADL) after stroke.

RESULTS

We included 38 RCTs with 1261 participants. Pairwise NMA showed transcutaneous VNS (tVNS) and anodal tDCS were effective in improving upper limb motor function (tVNS: mean difference [MD]: 5.50; 95% CI [0.67-11.67]; p < 0.05; anodal tDCS: MD: 5.23; 95% CI [2.45-8.01]; p < 0.05). tVNS and tDCS (anodal and cathodal) were also effective in improving ADL performance after stroke (tVNS: standard MD [SMD]: 0.96; 95% CI [0.15-2.06]; p < 0.05; anodal tDCS: SMD: 3.78; 95% CI [0.0-7.56]; p < 0.05; cathodal tDCS: SMD: 5.38; 95% CI [0.22-10.54]; p < 0.05). Surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis revealed that tVNS is the best ranked treatment in improving upper limb motor function and performance in ADL after stroke. There was no difference in safety between VNS and its control interventions, measured by reported adverse events (VNS: risk ratio = 1.02 [95% CI = 0.48-2.17; I² = 0; p = 0.96]).

CONCLUSION

Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggests that tVNS and anodal tDCS were effective in improving upper limb motor function in both acute/subacute and chronic stroke. In addition to tVNS and anodal tDCS, cathodal tDCS is also effective in improving ADL performance after stroke.

Quantifying Quality of Reaching Movements Longitudinally Post-Stroke: A Systematic Review

Background

Disambiguation of behavioral restitution from compensation is important to better understand recovery of upper limb motor control post-stroke and subsequently design better interventions. Measuring quality of movement (QoM) during standardized performance assays and functional tasks using kinematic and kinetic metrics potentially allows for this disambiguation.

Objectives

To identify longitudinal studies that used kinematic and/or kinetic metrics to investigate post-stroke recovery of reaching and assess whether these studies distinguish behavioral restitution from compensation.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Wiley/Cochrane Library up to July 1st, 2020. Studies were identified if they performed longitudinal kinematic and/or kinetic measurements during reaching, starting within the first 6 months post-stroke.

Results

Thirty-two longitudinal studies were identified, which reported a total of forty-six different kinematic metrics. Although the majority investigated improvements in kinetics or kinematics to quantify recovery of QoM, none of these studies explicitly addressed the distinction between behavioral restitution and compensation. One study obtained kinematic metrics for both performance assays and a functional task.

Conclusions

Despite the growing number of kinematic and kinetic studies on post-stroke recovery, longitudinal studies that explicitly seek to delineate between behavioral restitution and compensation are still lacking in the literature. To rectify this situation, future studies should measure kinematics and/or kinetics during performance assays to isolate restitution and during a standardized functional task to determine the contributions of restitution and compensation.

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.

Xinglou Chengqi Decoction improves neurological function in experimental stroke mice as evidenced by gut microbiota analysis and network pharmacology

The current study was designed to explore the brain protection mechanism of Xinglou Chengqi Decoction (XCD) based on gut microbiota analysis and network pharmacology. A transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) model of mice was established, followed by behavioral evaluation, TTC and TUNEL staining. Additionally, to investigate the effects of gut microbiota on neurological function after stroke, C57BL/6 mice were treated with anti-biotic cocktails 14 days prior to ischemic stroke (IS) to deplete the gut microbiota. High-throughput 16S rDNA gene sequencing, metabonomics technique, and flow multifactor technology were used to analyze bacterial communities, SCFAs and inflammatory cytokines respectively. Finally, as a supplement, network pharmacology and molecular docking were applied to fully explore the multicomponent-multitarget-multichannel mechanism of XCD in treating IS, implicated in ADME screening, target identification, network analysis, functional annotation, and pathway enrichment analysis. We found that XCD effectively improved neurological function, relieved cerebral infarction and decreased the neuronal apoptosis. Moreover, XCD promoted the release of anti-inflammatory factor like IL-10, while down-regulating pro-inflammatory factors such as TNF-α, IL-17A, and IL-22. Furthermore, XCD significantly increased the levels of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs), especially butyric acid. The mechanism might be related to the regulation of SCFAs-producing bacteria like Verrucomicrobia and Akkermansia, and bacteria that regulate inflammation like Paraprevotella, Roseburia, Streptophyta and Enterococcu. Finally, in the network pharmacological analysis, 51 active compounds in XCD and 44 intersection targets of IS and XCD were selected. As a validation, components in XCD docked well with key targets. It was obviously that biological processes were mainly involved in the regulation of apoptotic process, inflammatory response, response to fatty acid, and regulation of establishment of endothelial barrier in GO enrichment. XCD can improve neurological function in experimental stroke mice, partly due to the regulation of gut microbiota. Besises, XCD has the characteristic of "multi-component, multi-target and multi-channel" in the treatment of IS revealed by network pharmacology and molecular docking.

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.

Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation for post-stroke spasticity: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

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.

Effects of Dual Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Modified Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy to Improve Upper-Limb Function after Stroke: A Double-Blinded, Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Dual transcranial direct current stimulation (dual tDCS) can be combined with stroke rehabilitation interventions to promote excitatory changes in the cerebral cortex.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how the combined intervention of dual tDCS and modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) using both anodal and cathodal stimulation affects on the recovery of upper limb function in chronic stroke patients.

METHODS

This study was a double-blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 30 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (dual tDCS and mCIMT) or control group (sham dual tDCS and mCIMT). The experimental and control group performed mCIMT immediately after applying dual tDCS for 20 min, but the control group also performed mCIMT after applying sham tDCS for 20 min in a state where no current flows. The total intervention period was performed 5 times a week for 4 weeks. The outcome was assessed using Fugle-Meyer Assessment (FMA) Motor Activity Log (MAL) Accelerometer.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in AOU of MAL and usage of unaffected side in the experimental group compared to the control group, and the experimental group showed more than a small effect difference compared to the control group in the effect size of all evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has clinical significance in that it presents the possibility of convergence intervention that considers the therapeutic efficiency in clinical practice.

Multifocal Noninvasive Magnetic Stimulation of the Primary Motor Cortex in Type 1 Myotonic Dystrophy -A Proof of Concept Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Repeated neuromuscular electrical stimulation in type 1 Myotonic Dystrophy (DM1) has previously been shown to cause an increase in strength and a decrease in hyperexcitability of the tibialis anterior muscle.

OBJECTIVE

In this proof-of-principle study our objective was to test the hypothesis that noninvasive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1) with a new portable wearable multifocal stimulator causes improvement in muscle function in DM1 patients.

METHODS

We performed repetitive stimulation of M1, localized by magnetic resonance imaging, with a newly developed Transcranial Rotating Permanent Magnet Stimulator (TRPMS). Using a randomized within-patient placebo-controlled double-blind TRPMS protocol, we performed unilateral active stimulation along with contralateral sham stimulation every weekday for two weeks in 6 adults. Methods for evaluation of muscle function involved electromyography (EMG), hand dynamometry and clinical assessment using the Medical Research Council scale.

RESULTS

All participants tolerated the treatment well. While there were no significant changes clinically, EMG showed significant improvement in nerve stimulus-evoked compound muscle action potential amplitude of the first dorsal interosseous muscle and a similar but non-significant trend in the trapezius muscle, after a short exercise test, with active but not sham stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that two-week repeated multifocal cortical stimulation with a new wearable transcranial magnetic stimulator can be safely conducted in DM1 patients to investigate potential improvement of muscle strength and activity. The results obtained, if confirmed and extended by future safety and efficacy trials with larger patient samples, could offer a potential supportive TRPMS treatment in DM1.

The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on upper-limb function post-stroke: A meta-analysis of multiple-session studies

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review how patient characteristics and/or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) parameters influence tDCS effectiveness in respect to upper limb function post-stroke.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched for sham-controlled randomised trials using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity as outcome measure. A meta-analysis and nine subgroup-analyses were performed to identify which tDCS parameters yielded the greatest impact on upper limb function recovery in stroke patients.

RESULTS

Eighteen high-quality studies (507 patients) were included. tDCS applied in a chronic stage yields greater results than tDCS applied in a (sub)acute stage. Additionally, patients with low baseline upper limb impairments seem to benefit more from tDCS than those with high baseline impairments. Regarding tDCS configuration, all stimulation types led to a significant improvement, but only tDCS applied during therapy, and not before therapy, yielded significant results. A positive dose-response relationship was identified for current/charge density and stimulation duration, but not for number of sessions.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that tDCS improves upper limb function post-stroke. However, its effectiveness depends on numerous factors. Especially chronic stroke patients improved, which is promising as they are typically least amenable to recovery.

SIGNIFICANCE

The current work highlights the importance of several patient-related and protocol-related factors regarding tDCS effectiveness.

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 Combined With Physical Training on the Excitability of the Motor Cortex, Physical Performance, and Motor Learning: A Systematic Review

Purpose: This systematic review aims to examine the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with physical training on the excitability of the motor cortex, physical performance, and motor learning. Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases for relevant research published from inception to August 2020. Eligible studies included those that used a randomized controlled design and reported the effects of tDCS combined with physical training to improve motor-evoked potential (MEP), dynamic posture stability index (DPSI), reaction time, and error rate on participants without nervous system diseases. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Results: Twenty-four of an initial yield of 768 studies met the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was considered low. Results showed that anodal tDCS combined with physical training can significantly increase MEP amplitude, decrease DPSI, increase muscle strength, and decrease reaction time and error rate in motor learning tasks. Moreover, the gain effect is significantly greater than sham tDCS combined with physical training. Conclusion: tDCS combined with physical training can effectively improve the excitability of the motor cortex, physical performance, and motor learning. The reported results encourage further research to understand further the synergistic effects of tDCS combined with physical training.

What the Tech? The Management of Neurological Dysfunction Through the Use of Digital Technology

Worldwide, it is estimated that millions of individuals suffer from a neurological disorder which can be the result of head injuries, ischaemic events such as a stroke, or neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease (PD) and multiple sclerosis (MS). Problems with mobility and hemiparesis are common for these patients, making daily life, social factors and independence heavily affected. Current therapies aimed at improving such conditions are often tedious in nature, with patients often losing vital motivation and positive outlook towards their rehabilitation. The interest in the use of digital technology in neuro-rehabilitation has skyrocketed in the past decade. To gain insight, a systematic review of the literature in the field was conducting following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for three categories: stroke, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. It was found that the majority of the literature (84%) was in favour of the use of digital technologies in the management of neurological dysfunction; with some papers taking a "neutral" or "against" standpoint. It was found that the use of technologies such as virtual reality (VR), robotics, wearable sensors and telehealth was highly accepted by patients, helped to improve function, reduced anxiety and make therapy more accessible to patients living in more remote areas. The most successful therapies were those that used a combination of conventional therapies and new digital technologies.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, with improving cognition being the number one research priority in this field. A possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in people after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tDCS on ADL, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases in January 2019. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review, we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADL and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADL, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria. If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies involving a total of 1729 patients after stroke. We also identified 116 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. The majority of participants had ischaemic stroke, with mean age between 43 and 75 years, in the acute, postacute, and chronic phase after stroke, and level of impairment ranged from severe to less severe. Included studies differed in terms of type, location and duration of stimulation, amount of current delivered, electrode size and positioning, as well as type and location of stroke. We found 23 studies with 781 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADL after stroke. Nineteen studies with 686 participants reported absolute values and showed evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.44; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). Four studies with 95 participants reported change scores, and showed an effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADL at the end of follow-up and provided absolute values, and found improved ADL (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence). One study with 16 participants provided change scores and found no effect (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.37; low-quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis that included only trials with proper allocation concealment. Thirty-four trials with a total of 985 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period. Twenty-four studies with 792 participants that presented absolute values found no effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; moderate-quality evidence). Ten studies with 193 participants that presented change values also found no effect (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.79; low-quality evidence). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified five studies with a total of 211 participants (absolute values) without an effect (SMD -0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). Three studies with 72 participants presenting change scores found an effect (SMD 1.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.11; low-quality evidence). Twelve studies with 258 participants reported outcome data for lower extremity function and 18 studies with 553 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but there was no effect (high-quality evidence). Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect (moderate-quality evidence). Two studies with 56 participants found no evidence of effect of tDCS on cognitive abilities (low-quality evidence), but one study with 30 participants found evidence of effect of tDCS for improving spatial neglect (very low-quality evidence). In 47 studies with 1330 participants, the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.13; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of very low to moderate quality on the effectiveness of tDCS versus control (sham intervention or any other intervention) for improving ADL outcomes after stroke. However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analyses including only trials with proper allocation concealment. Evidence of low to high quality suggests that there is no effect of tDCS on arm function and leg function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities in people after stroke. Evidence of very low quality suggests that there is an effect on hemispatial neglect. There was moderate-quality evidence that adverse events and numbers of people discontinuing the treatment are not increased. Future studies should particularly engage with patients who may benefit the most from tDCS after stroke, but also should investigate the effects in routine application. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group design and sample size estimation for tDCS are needed.

Robot-assisted therapy for arm recovery for stroke patients: state of the art and clinical implication

Introduction: Robot-assisted therapy is an emerging approach that performs highly repetitive, intensive, task oriented and quantifiable neuro-rehabilitation. In the last decades, it has been increasingly used in a wide range of neurological central nervous system conditions implying an upper limb paresis. Results from the studies are controversial, for the many types of robots and their features often not accompanied by specific clinical indications about the target functions, fundamental for the individualized neurorehabilitation program.Areas covered: This article reviews the state of the art and perspectives of robotics in post-stroke rehabilitation for upper limb recovery. Classifications and features of robots have been reported in accordance with technological and clinical contents, together with the definition of determinants specific for each patient, that could modify the efficacy of robotic treatments. The possibility of combining robotic intervention with other therapies has also been discussed.Expert commentary: The recent wide diffusion of robots in neurorehabilitation has generated a confusion due to the commingling of technical and clinical aspects not previously clarified. Our critical review provides a possible hypothesis about how to match a robot with subject's upper limb functional abilities, but also highlights the need of organizing a clinical consensus conference about the robotic therapy.