Rosso 2014.
| Methods | Randomised controlled cross‐over trial | |
| Participants | Country: France Participants: 25 people (12 men, 13 women) with stroke‐induced aphasia; mean age (SD): 57 (18) years; time since stroke (SD): 15 (20) months; median educational level: 2 or 3 years university degree; baseline picture‐naming accuracy (SD): 28% (13%) Inclusion criteria: left‐hemispheric first‐ever stroke in the MCA territory, aged between 18 and 85 years, native French speaker, the presence of aphasia based on item 9 of the NIHSS persistent at post‐stroke day 1 (≥ 1 point), no contraindications for MRI or tDCS, being able to walk (Rankin score ≤ 2), no severe white matter lesions (Fazekas score < 3) Exclusion criteria: not explicitly stated |
|
| Interventions | Each participant underwent both of the following conditions once (order randomised; electrodes were positioned by MRI‐based neuronavigation): ‐ C‐tDCS over the ascendant ramus of the lateral sulcus separating the pars triangularis and pars opercularis of the right inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's homologue area) with 1 mA for 15 minutes ‐ S‐tDCS over the ascendant ramus of the lateral sulcus separating the pars triangularis and pars opercularis of the right inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's homologue area) for 15 minutes |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes were recorded at baseline and at the end of intervention phase: ‐ interhemispheric functional balance (measured by resting state functional MRI) ‐ picture‐naming accuracy (continuous; ranging from 0 to 100 with a higher value indicating better performance) ‐ integrity of language white matter pathways (measured by probabilistic tractography) |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcomes | Unclear risk | Participants were blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes | Unclear risk | Not described |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Objective outcomes | High risk | The study authors presented only results regarding behavioural assessment of 19 out of 25 participants (76%) in diagrams and of 22 out of 25 participants (88%) in the text |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | All outcomes listed in the 'Methods' section reported, no published protocol could be identified |
| Other bias | Low risk | No other bias identified |