Elsevier

Clinical Neurophysiology

Volume 127, Issue 1, January 2016, Pages 946-955
Clinical Neurophysiology

Multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation and upper extremity rehabilitation in stroke: A review and meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.04.067Get rights and content

Highlights

  • tDCS and rehabilitation had small non-significant effect on upper extremity impairments.

  • Varied tDCS and rehabilitation programmes were identified in selected studies.

  • Future research needs to further analyse tDCS and therapy interventions in stroke.

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review the methodology in particular treatment options and outcomes and the effect of multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with rehabilitation programmes for upper extremity recovery post stroke.

Methods

A search was conducted for randomised controlled trials involving tDCS and rehabilitation for the upper extremity in stroke. Quality of included studies was analysed using the Modified Downs and Black form. The extent of, and effect of variation in treatment parameters such as anodal, cathodal and bi-hemispheric tDCS on upper extremity outcome measures of impairment and activity were analysed using meta-analysis.

Results

Nine studies (371 participants with acute, sub-acute and chronic stroke) were included. Different methodologies of tDCS and upper extremity intervention, outcome measures and timing of assessments were identified. Real tDCS combined with rehabilitation had a small non-significant effect of +0.11 (p = 0.44) and +0.24 (p = 0.11) on upper extremity impairments and activities at post-intervention respectively.

Conclusion

Various tDCS methods have been used in stroke rehabilitation. The evidence so far is not statistically significant, but is suggestive of, at best, a small beneficial effect on upper extremity impairment.

Significance

Future research should focus on which patients and rehabilitation programmes are likely to respond to different tDCS regimes.

Introduction

Stroke is a health concern worldwide and one of the main causes of disability (Kolominsky-Rabas et al., 2001, Albert and Kesselring, 2012). Motor impairment is the main cause of disability after stroke, leading to major health problems (Boggio et al., 2007, Clarke, 1999). In Europe, stroke costs around 64.1 billion euros and in the United Kingdom, around £8.9 billion per annum is spent on community care and rehabilitation of people with stroke (Saka et al., 2009, Gustavsson et al., 2011). At 6 months, 33–66% of people with upper extremity (UE) impairments do not present with functional upper limb function and only 5–20% achieve full recovery (Kwakkel et al., 2003, Kwakkel and Kollen, 2013). Thus a number of approaches are now being investigated in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation techniques for the UE.

Non-invasive methods of brain stimulation such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are extensively researched and are beginning to be used clinically to modulate brain activity (Paulus, 2003, Pascual-Leone et al., 2000, Hummel et al., 2005). Although these two methods have very different modes of action (rTMS stimulates axons in the brain and initiates new action potentials; tDCS polarises the neurones, and modulates their ongoing firing pattern) both of them, when applied over the motor cortex, produce changes in cortical excitability which, in the case of tDCS can last up to 90 min (Nitsche and Paulus, 2000, Nitsche and Paulus, 2001, Fitzgerald et al., 2006). They also enhance motor performance and can change reaction times, movement accuracy and speed (Nitsche et al., 2003b, Kobayashi et al., 2004). More importantly, in the context of possible therapeutic application, they can improve motor skill learning (Reis and Fritsch, 2011, Teo et al., 2011) or adapt already learned skills to new conditions (Galea et al., 2011). There has therefore been considerable interest in examining the potential of these interventions to augment recovery of motor function after stroke.

Initial investigations with non-invasive brain stimulation concentrated on using methods of rTMS to improve recovery in acute and chronic stroke (Khedr et al., 2005, Kim et al., 2006). However in recent years there has been increased interest in using tDCS because of two main advantages: firstly it is far less expensive than rTMS, and secondly, stimulation can potentially be applied during rehabilitation whereas rTMS (because the equipment is bulky and the head needs to remain still), it can only be given before (or after) a training session (Brunoni et al., 2012). From a practical viewpoint, anodal tDCS is usually assumed to increase excitability whereas cathodal tDCS reduces excitability (Nitsche and Paulus, 2000). In stroke rehabilitation this means that researchers will employ anodal tDCS over the stroke hemisphere to improve the response of that hemisphere to training protocols (Hummel et al., 2005). Alternatively, employing the logic of inter-hemispheric imbalance, cathodal stimulation of the non-stroke hemisphere will inhibit that hemisphere to reduce its trans-hemispheric inhibition of the affected hemisphere or bihemispheric stimulation by simultaneously modulating the unaffected and affected motor cortex (Nitsche et al., 2003a, Lindenberg et al., 2010).

In healthy volunteers, the effects of tDCS on cortical excitability and performance are short-lasting and variable (Nitsche and Paulus, 2000, Lopez-Alonso et al., 2014, Wiethoff et al., 2014). However, it is usually assumed that multiple daily applications in stroke may lead to a build-up of effects that are larger and more persistent. The main evidence in favour of this comes from studies of rTMS to treat depression: a single session, or even 2 weeks daily treatment with rTMS has little effect on symptoms over and above placebo, whereas longer (>4 weeks) treatments can improve symptoms for several months (Dell’Osso et al., 2011, Galletly et al., 2012). Thus most recent clinical trials of tDCS have employed several days or weeks of repeated treatment with rehabilitation programmes in an attempt to maximise outcome (Lee and Chun, 2014, Viana et al., 2014). Interestingly it is still unclear whether repeated daily session of tDCS has cumulative effects in the healthy and stroke population (Alonzo et al., 2012, Monte-Silva et al., 2013).

Recent meta-analyses have explored the effect of tDCS in addition to rehabilitation on UE activity in stroke (Bastani and Jaberzadeh, 2012, Adeyemo et al., 2012, Butler et al., 2013, Elsner et al., 2013). Adeyemo et al. (2012) demonstrated a significant effect size (0.58) of non-invasive brain stimulation on motor function. Bastani and Jaberzadeh, 2012 showed that anodal tDCS had a small non-significant effect size of 0.39 on hand function in stroke, but a moderate significant effect size of 0.59 on motor evoked potential amplitude. Butler et al. (2013) also demonstrated a significant small effect size of 0.40 of anodal tDCS on UE motor recovery. A Cochrane review showed that tDCS has a small effect on UE motor impairments but not on activities of daily living at post-intervention (Elsner et al., 2013). However, at follow-up they showed an effect of tDCS on activities of daily living but not on UE motor impairments. No effect of tDCS in sub-groups involving people with acute, sub-acute and chronic stroke was found. The analyses in these reviews combined studies including one or multiple sessions of tDCS, and the pooled effects of only multiple tDCS sessions plus therapy remains uninvestigated.

The aim of the current study was to systematically review the methodology adopted in various studies of tDCS. In particular treatment options, outcomes reported, and the effect of multiple sessions of tDCS with rehabilitation programmes for UE recovery post stroke. We included trials in which anodal, cathodal or bi-hemispheric tDCS was applied in conjunction with UE rehabilitation programmes at any stage post stroke.

Section snippets

Search

A systematic search was conducted for articles written in English and published between 1990 and July 2014. Full text articles in electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), CINAHL (Cumulated Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), PubMed, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were systematically searched by the first author (LTT). Combination of key words with the use of ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ were used for the searches (

Search results

The PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 1) shows the search and selection results. Nine papers scored 16 points or above using the Downs and Black scoring were included in the qualitative analysis and eight were (Eng et al., 2007) (Table 2).

Main characteristics of the RCT’s

In total, 371 participants with stroke (243 males) meeting the eligibility criteria for our review study were included in the nine selected studies. All participants had a single stroke apart from the ones in the study by Viana et al. (2014). Limited detail was reported

Discussion

Driven by the positive benefits of repeated sessions of rTMS to treat depression, many current trials apply the same logic when using tDCS to improve recovery of arm function after stroke. This is the first review to explore the effect of just multiple sessions of tDCS and UE rehabilitation programmes on outcome measures based on the ICF; impairment and activity. Therefore, it examines the potential clinical use of tDCS. We performed a meta-analysis of the data, in which this approach was used

Conclusions

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been a popular method of exploring the effect of tDCS on UE recovery in stroke. The results from this review showed that multiple sessions of tDCS regimes combined with UE rehabilitation had a small and non-significant effect on upper limb impairments and activities of daily living post-intervention. However, from this review there is wide variation in tDCS parameters adopted in the constituent trials and different UE therapy. Factors such as selection

Acknowledgments

We would to thank the Faculty of Health Sciences of the 502 University of Southampton and also the Strategic Educational Pathways Scholarship Scheme (Malta) – The scholarship is part-financed by the European Union – European Social Fund.

Conflicts of interest statement: None of the authors have potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed.

References (56)

  • K. Monte-Silva et al.

    Induction of late LTP-like plasticity in the human motor cortex by repeated non-invasive brain stimulation

    Brain stimul

    (2013)
  • M.A. Nitsche et al.

    Level of action of cathodal DC polarisation induced inhibition of the human motor cortex

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2003)
  • J.P. O’Reardon et al.

    Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial

    Biol Psychiatry

    (2007)
  • A. Pascual-Leone et al.

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience–virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional connectivity

    Curr Opin Neurobiol

    (2000)
  • W. Paulus

    Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

    Suppl Clin Neurophysiol

    (2003)
  • C. Stagg et al.

    Polarity and timing-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in explicit motor learning

    Neuropsychologia

    (2011)
  • S. Wiethoff et al.

    Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex

    Brain Stimul

    (2014)
  • D. Wu et al.

    Effects on decreasing upper-limb poststroke muscle tone using transcranial direct current stimulation: a randomized sham-controlled study

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (2013)
  • B.O. Adeyemo et al.

    Systematic review of parameters of stimulation: clinical trial design characteristics and motor outcomes in noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke

    Front Psychiatry

    (2012)
  • S. Albert et al.

    Neurorehabilitation of stroke

    J Neurol

    (2012)
  • G. Batsikadze et al.

    Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans

    J Physiol

    (2013)
  • P.S. Boggio et al.

    Repeated sessions of noninvasive brain DC stimulation is associated with motor function improvement in stroke patients

    Restor Neurol Neurosci

    (2007)
  • N. Bolognini et al.

    Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tDCS combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in poststroke patients

    Neurorehabil Neural Repair

    (2011)
  • M. Borenstein et al.

    A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis

    Res Synth Methods

    (2010)
  • P.J. Clarke

    Handicap in stroke survivors

    Disabil Rehabil

    (1999)
  • J. Cohen

    A power primer

    Psychol Bull

    (1992)
  • B. Dell’Osso et al.

    Meta-review of metanalytic studies with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of major depression

    Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health

    (2011)
  • B. Elsner et al.

    Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving function and activities of daily living in patients after stroke

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text