Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37875941›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation on balance and gait in patients with multiple sclerosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Rafael Nombela-Cabrera, Soraya Pérez-Nombela, Juan Avendaño-Coy, Natalia Comino-Suárez, Rubén Arroyo-Fernández, Julio Gómez-Soriano, Diego Serrano-Muñoz

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor function in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rafael Nombela-CabreraMultiple Sclerosis Association of Torrijos, Torrijos, Spain.
Soraya Pérez-NombelaToledo Physiotherapy Research Group (GIFTO), Faculty of Physiotherapy and Nursing of Toledo, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain. soraya.perez@uclm.es.
Juan Avendaño-CoyToledo Physiotherapy Research Group (GIFTO), Faculty of Physiotherapy and Nursing of Toledo, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Natalia Comino-SuárezToledo Physiotherapy Research Group (GIFTO), Faculty of Physiotherapy and Nursing of Toledo, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Rubén Arroyo-FernándezPhysiotherapy Unit, Hospital Nuestra Señora del Prado, Talavera de la Reina, Spain.
Julio Gómez-SorianoToledo Physiotherapy Research Group (GIFTO), Faculty of Physiotherapy and Nursing of Toledo, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Diego Serrano-MuñozToledo Physiotherapy Research Group (GIFTO), Faculty of Physiotherapy and Nursing of Toledo, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
University of Castilla-La Mancha · ESHospital General Nuestra Señora del Prado · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMotor impairments are very common in neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Noninvasive brain stimulation could influence the motor function of patients.

objectiveThe aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on balance and gait ability in patients with multiple sclerosis. Additionally, a secondary aim was to compare the influence of the stimulation location of tDCS on current effectiveness.

methodsA search was conducted for randomized controlled trials published up to May 2023 comparing the application of tDCS versus a sham or control group. The primary outcome variables were balance and gait ability.

resultsEleven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and ten were included in the quantitative analysis, which included 230 patients with multiple sclerosis. The average effect of tDCS on gait functionality was superior to that of the control group (SMD = -0.71; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.37). However, the overall results of the tDCS vs. sham effect on static balance did not show significant differences between groups (MD = 1.26, 95% CI, -1.31 to 3.82). No significant differences were found when different locations of tDCS were compared.

conclusionsThese results reveal that tDCS is an effective treatment for improving gait ability with a low quality of evidence. However, the application of tDCS has no effect on static balance in patients with multiple sclerosis with very low quality of evidence. Similarly, there seems to be no difference regarding the stimulation area with tDCS.

Indexed as

GaitMultiple SclerosisPostural BalanceTranscranial Direct Current StimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBalanceGaitMultiple sclerosisRehabilitationTranscranial direct-current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37875941
PMCPMC10594930
OpenAlexW4387894202

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.