Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36895285›Full record

ReviewNeural plasticity2023

From Molecule to Patient Rehabilitation: The Impact of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Magnetic Stimulation on Stroke-A Narrative Review.

Anca Badoiu, Smaranda Ioana Mitran, Bogdan Catalin, Tudor Adrian Balseanu, Aurel Popa-Wagner, Florin Liviu Gherghina, Carmen Valeria Albu, Raluca Elena Sandu

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neural plasticity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. New approaches to recovery after stroke.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anca Badoiu *Department of Neurology, Clinical Hospital of Neuropsychiatry, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Smaranda Ioana Mitran *Department of Physiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Bogdan Catalin *Department of Physiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Tudor Adrian BalseanuDepartment of Physiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Aurel Popa-WagnerExperimental Research Centre for Normal and Pathological Aging, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Florin Liviu GherghinaDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.ORCID 0000-0001-5181-5013
Carmen Valeria AlbuDepartment of Neurology, Clinical Hospital of Neuropsychiatry, 200349 Craiova, Romania.ORCID 0009-0008-9603-5860
Raluca Elena SanduDepartment of Neurology, Clinical Hospital of Neuropsychiatry, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stroke is a major health problem worldwide, with numerous health, social, and economic implications for survivors and their families. One simple answer to this problem would be to ensure the best rehabilitation with full social reintegration. As such, a plethora of rehabilitation programs was developed and used by healthcare professionals. Among them, modern techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation are being used and seem to bring improvements to poststroke rehabilitation. This success is attributed to their capacity to enhance cellular neuromodulation. This modulation includes the reduction of the inflammatory response, autophagy suppression, antiapoptotic effects, angiogenesis enhancement, alterations in the blood-brain barrier permeability, attenuation of oxidative stress, influence on neurotransmitter metabolism, neurogenesis, and enhanced structural neuroplasticity. The favorable effects have been demonstrated at the cellular level in animal models and are supported by clinical studies. Thus, these methods proved to reduce infarct volumes and to improve motor performance, deglutition, functional independence, and high-order cerebral functions (i.e., aphasia and heminegligence). However, as with every therapeutic method, these techniques can also have limitations. Their regimen of administration, the phase of the stroke at which they are applied, and the patients' characteristics (i.e., genotype and corticospinal integrity) seem to influence the outcome. Thus, no response or even worsening effects were obtained under certain circumstances both in animal stroke model studies and in clinical trials. Overall, weighing up risks and benefits, the new transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation techniques can represent effective tools with which to improve the patients' recovery after stroke, with minimal to no adverse effects. Here, we discuss their effects and the molecular and cellular events underlying their effects as well as their clinical implications.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAnimalsHumansMagnetic PhenomenaTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36895285
PMCPMC9991485
OpenAlexW4322615397

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.