Table 4.
Study characteristics and results.
| References | Number of sessions | Training or intervention | Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocol: When Intensity (mA) Duration (minutes) Electrode size (cm2) |
Outcome measures | Result (primary outcome) | PEDro score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary (P) Other (O) |
When measured | ||||||
| Cross-over designs | |||||||
| Boggio et al. (43) (Experiment 1) | 4 (1/week) each of anode, cathode, and sham tDCS 2 week washout |
Jebsen Taylor Test | Online 1 20 35 |
P: Jebsen Taylor Test | Baseline, pre, post | (1) ANOVA on change score: effect of stimulation, p = 0.009; (2) post-hoc comparison cathode vs. sham p = 0.016 | 7 |
| Fleming et al. (44) | 1 each of anode, cathode, dual, and sham tDCS 1 week washout |
Motor sequence learning task | Online 1 20 25 |
P: Jebsen Taylor Test | Pre, post | (1) ANOVA on change score: effect of stimulation, p = 0.003; (2) post-hoc comparison cathode vs. sham p = 0.003 | 6 |
| Fregni et al. (46) | 1 each of anode, cathode, and sham tDCS 2 day washout |
Jebsen Taylor Test | Online 1 20 35 |
P: Jebsen Taylor Test | Baseline, pre, post | (1) ANOVA; interaction of stimulation and time, p = 0.002; (2) ANOVA for cathode tDCS; main effect of time, p = 0.001 | 8 |
| Stagg et al. (51) | 1 each of anode, cathode, and sham tDCS 1 week washout |
Response time and grip force tasks | Online 1 20 35 |
P: response times and grip strength | Pre, post | (1) ANOVA: interaction of stimulation and time, p = 0.005; (2) paired t-tests on change score: cathode vs. sham p = 0.048; pre vs. post cathode p = 0.92 | 6 |
| Zimerman et al. (52) | 1 each of cathode and sham tDCS 9 day washout |
Motor sequence learning task | Online 1 20 25 |
P: number of correct sequences O: total number of sequences per block |
Post, post 90 min, post 24 h | (1) ANOVA: interaction of stimulation and time, p = 0.02; (2) post-hoc comparison cathode vs. sham p < 0.05 | 9 |
| Randomized controlled trials | |||||||
| Hesse et al. (45) | 30 (5 days/week for 6 weeks) | Robotics therapy | Online 2 20 35 |
P: Fugl–Meyer O: strength, tone, Barthel Index, box and block |
Pre, post, 3 months | ANOVA on change score: effect of time, p < 0.001, no effect of group or interaction | 10 |
| Khedr et al. (53) | 6 consecutive days | In-patient therapy | Offline, followed by therapy 2 25 35 |
P: NIHSS, Orgogozo scale, Barthel Index, strength | Pre, post, 1, 2, and 3 months | (1) ANOVA: interaction of group (tDCS vs. sham) and time, p < 0.005; (2) ANOVA: interaction of group (cathode vs. sham) × time, p = 0.017) | 10 |
| Kim et al. (47) | 10 (5 days/week for 2 weeks) | Conventional therapy | Online 2 20 25 |
P: Fugl–Meyer, Barthel Index | Pre, post 1 day, 6 months | (1) ANOVA: interaction of group and time, p = 0.017; (2) post-hoc comparisons final score at 6 months, cathode vs. sham, p < 0.05 | 9 |
| Nair et al. (48) | 5 (1 day/week for 1 week) | Occupational therapy | Online 1 30 35 |
P: Fugl–Meyer, range of motion | Pre, post, post 7 days | ANOVA: interaction of group and time, p = 0.048 | 8 |
| Nicolo et al. (49) | 9 (3 days/week for 3 weeks) | Physical therapy | Online 1 25 35 |
P: composite motor score (Fugl–Meyer, Box and Block, Nine Hole Peg Test, Jamar dynamometer) O: assessments comprising composite score, analyzed separately; brain connectivity |
Baseline, pre, post, post 30 days | Kruskal–Wallis test on change scores between post and pre, p = 0.61 | 9 |
| Rocha et al. (50) | 12 (3 days/week for 4 weeks) | Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) | Offline, followed by CIMT 1 Anode: 13 min Cathode: 8 min 35 |
P: Fugl–Meyer O: motor activity log, grip strength |
Pre, post, 1 month | (1) ANOVA: interaction of group and time, p = 0.035; (2) unpaired t-test, cathode vs. sham, p > 0.05 | 10 |
Highlighted cells indicate a significant difference between cathode vs. sham tDCS.