Trial reportNeuroRehabilitation2025
The Treatment of Cervicogenic Headache with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Exercise Therapy: A Randomized Control Trial Evaluating Functional Outcomes.
Trial report in NeuroRehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with rehabilitation training for chronic spinal pain: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to evaluate functional outcomes of cervical motor control, strength and endurance following active transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with exercise therapy (ET) compared to sham tDCS/+ET in patient with cervicogenic headache (CGH),DesignThis was a pilot sham-controlled, participant and assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial.MethodsThirty-two participants with CGH were randomized to active tDCS/+ET or sham tDCS/+ET. Participants completed 6-weeks of daily ET concurrently combined with 3 sessions per week of tDCS. Assessments included: craniocervical flexion test (mmHg), cervical isometric strength (N), cervical flexor and extensor endurance (seconds), and range of motion (degrees) pre-treatment, post-treatment, 6-weeks and 12-weeks post treatment. Linear mixed effect models evaluated group-time interactions at each follow-up while accounting for exercise program adherence and sex.ResultsThere were significant group-time interactions for activation scores on the craniocervical flexion test from pre-treatment to post-treatment (β = 1.571; 95%CI[0.155, 2.988]; p = 0.030), 6-weeks (β = 1.571; 95%CI[0.155, 2.988]; p = 0.030), and 12-weeks (β = 1.954; 95%CI[0.465, 3.443]; p = 0.011) favoring the active tDCS/+ET group.ConclusionsActive tDCS/+ET demonstrated significant benefits in deep cervical flexor motor control compared to sham tDCS/+ET that remained improved up to 12 weeks post-treatment. This suggests tDCS/+ET may improve of functional outcomes for patients with CGH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.