Skip to main content
. 2016 Mar 21;2016(3):CD009645. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009645.pub3

Sunwoo 2013.

Methods Study design: randomised controlled cross‐over trial
Number of dropouts: not stated
Number of adverse effects: 3 (mild headache after real dual‐tDCS)
Deaths: not stated
ITT: unclear
Participants Country: Republic of Korea
Sample size: 10 chronic stroke patients (mean age 63 years) with left unilateral visuospatial neglect after stroke
Inclusion criteria: not explicitly stated except written informed consent
Exclusion criteria: metallic implants in the head; skull defect; history of seizure; uncontrolled medical problems; severe cognitive impairment
Interventions Each participant underwent all of the following conditions (separated by a resting period of at least 24 hours)

  1. A‐tDCS over the right PPC (1 mA for 20 minutes) plus C‐tDCS over the left PPC (1 mA for 20 minutes)

  2. A‐tDCS over the right PPC (1 mA for 20 minutes) plus sham tDCS over the left PPC (1 mA for 10 seconds)

  3. Sham tDCS over the right PPC (1 mA for 10 seconds) plus sham tDCS over the left PPC (1 mA for 10 seconds)
Outcomes Outcomes were measured at baseline and at the end of stimulation

  1. Line bisection test

  2. Star cancellation test
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "All patients participated in dual, single, and sham tDCSsessions at intervals of at least 24 hours between sessions in a randomized order"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described by the authors
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 Subjective outcome measures Low risk Participants were blinded, whereas blinding of personnel was not stated. However, the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 Objective outcome measures Low risk Participants were blinded, whereas blinding of personnel was not stated. However, the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Subjective outcome measures Low risk Outcome assessor was blinded; quote: "Both tests were performed by a single examiner who was blinded to the type of stimulation"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Objective outcome measures Low risk Outcome assessor was blinded; quote: "Both tests were performed by a single examiner who was blinded to the type of stimulation"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 Subjective outcome measures Unclear risk All participants apparently completed the study. No treatment withdrawals, no losses to follow‐up, no trial group changes and no major adverse events were stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 Objective outcome measures Unclear risk All participants apparently completed the study. No treatment withdrawals, no losses to follow‐up, no trial group changes and no major adverse events were stated
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk All outcome measures listed in the methods section have been reported