A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effect of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on spasticity in upper motor neuron conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Effect of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on spasticity in upper motor neuron conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Spinal Cord

Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, College of Sciences, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, 3085, Australia.

Published: November 2023

Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Objectives: To determine the effect of non-invasive transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) on spasticity, activity limitations and participation restrictions in various upper motor neuron diseases.

Methods: Six databases including CINAHL plus, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched for the relevant records from January 2008 to December 2022. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data on spasticity, activity limitations and participation restrictions. The risk of bias was evaluated using the PEDro scale while the GRADE approach established the certainty of the evidence.

Results: Eleven studies were identified of which 5 (45.5%) were rated as having a low risk of bias and 8 (72.7%) were meta-analyzed. The meta-analyses did not show any significant differences between cathodal (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI = -1.50 to 0.15, P = 0.11, I = 75%, 6 RCTs) or anodal (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI = -0.43 to -0.64, p = 0.69, I = 0%, 2 RCTs) and sham tsDCS for spasticity. There was also no significant difference between active and sham tsDCS for activity limitations (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.21, p = 0.2, I = 0%, 2 RCTs) and participation restrictions (MD = -8.10, 95% CI = -18.02 to 1.82, p = 0.11, 1 RCT).

Conclusions: The meta-analysis of the available evidence provides an uncertain estimate of the effect of cathodal tsDCS on spasticity, activity limitation and participation restriction. It might be very helpful, or it may make no difference at all. However, considering the level of the evidence and the limitation in the quality of the majority of the included studies, further well-designed research may likely change the estimate of effect.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021245601.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00928-9DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tsdcs spasticity
12
spasticity activity
12
activity limitations
12
participation restrictions
12
transcutaneous spinal
8
spinal direct
8
direct current
8
current stimulation
8
upper motor
8
motor neuron
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!