Blinding in electric current stimulation in subacute neglect patients with current densities of 0.8 A/m
Blinding procedure
Pilot study
Stroke
Transcranial direct current stimulation
Visuospatial neglect
Journal
BMC research notes
ISSN: 1756-0500
Titre abrégé: BMC Res Notes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462768
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jan 2021
25 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
18
04
2020
accepted:
11
12
2020
entrez:
26
1
2021
pubmed:
27
1
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Neglect after stroke is a disabling disorder and its rehabilitation is a major challenge. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) seems to be a promising adjuvant technique to improve standard care neglect therapy. Since electric fields are influenced by age-related factors, higher current densities are probably needed for effective treatment in aged stroke patients. Validation of treatment efficacy requires sham-controlled experiments, but increased current densities might comprise blinding. Therefore, a pilot study was conducted to test sham adequacy when using current density of 0.8 A/m Odds ratio of correct guessing an atDCS condition compared to wrongly judge an atDCS condition as sham was 10.00 (95%CI 0.65-154.40, p = 0.099). However, given the small sample size and high OR, although likely somewhat overestimated, results require careful interpretation and blinding success in neglect studies with current densities of 0.8 A/m
Identifiants
pubmed: 33494832
doi: 10.1186/s13104-020-05421-7
pii: 10.1186/s13104-020-05421-7
pmc: PMC7836170
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
35Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 01;(7):CD003586
pubmed: 23813503
Brain Stimul. 2020 Jan - Feb;13(1):80-88
pubmed: 31405790
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Nov;126(11):2181-8
pubmed: 25922128
Neuromodulation. 2017 Apr;20(3):215-222
pubmed: 28220641
Cortex. 2015 Feb;63:296-316
pubmed: 25460496
Neuropsychol Rev. 2019 Dec;29(4):397-420
pubmed: 31748841
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987 Feb;68(2):98-102
pubmed: 3813864
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Apr;97(4):261-269
pubmed: 28953034
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Feb;125(2):298-305
pubmed: 23994192
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2006;24(4-6):209-15
pubmed: 17119299
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 22;11(2):e0149703
pubmed: 26900961
Brain Stimul. 2013 Nov;6(6):946-51
pubmed: 23835166
Neuroscientist. 2017 Apr;23(2):109-123
pubmed: 26873962
Brain Stimul. 2017 May - Jun;10(3):553-559
pubmed: 28279641
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Mar;125(3):602-7
pubmed: 24070673
Brain Cogn. 2007 Jun;64(1):50-9
pubmed: 17174459
Brain Res Bull. 2007 May 30;72(4-6):208-14
pubmed: 17452283
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 May 01;7:162
pubmed: 23641207
Neurology. 1999 Jul 13;53(1):126-31
pubmed: 10408548
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47514
pubmed: 23082174
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Sep;128(9):1774-1809
pubmed: 28709880
J Neural Eng. 2011 Dec;8(6):066017
pubmed: 22086257
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001 Oct;23(5):599-607
pubmed: 11778637
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9
pubmed: 15817019
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Jan;128(1):56-92
pubmed: 27866120
Cereb Cortex. 2004 Oct;14(10):1164-72
pubmed: 15142954
Postgrad Med J. 2006 Feb;82(964):84-8
pubmed: 16461469
Brain Stimul. 2019 Sep - Oct;12(5):1159-1168
pubmed: 30930209
Neuropsychologia. 2016 Feb;82:200-204
pubmed: 26808420
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Feb;99(2):355-366.e1
pubmed: 28802812
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Apr;128(4):589-603
pubmed: 28231477
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;117(4):845-50
pubmed: 16427357
Brain Stimul. 2013 Jul;6(4):690-5
pubmed: 23415938