Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Functional Electrical Stimulation for Upper Limbs in Individuals with Stroke: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.2 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Alfredo Lerín-Calvo, Juan José Fernández-Pérez, Raúl Ferrer-Peña, Aitor Martín-Odriozola
{"title":"Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Functional Electrical Stimulation for Upper Limbs in Individuals with Stroke: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Alfredo Lerín-Calvo, Juan José Fernández-Pérez, Raúl Ferrer-Peña, Aitor Martín-Odriozola","doi":"10.3390/neurolint17060089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) are established interventions to enhance upper limb motor function (ULMF) in people with stroke (PwS). However, evidence supporting their combined use remains limited and inconsistent. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of combined tDCS and FES for improving ULMF, activity, and participation in PwS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from inception to December 2024. Randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥18 years) with acute, subacute, or chronic stroke undergoing combined tDCS and FES interventions were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro scale, and risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. A qualitative synthesis was performed employing a five-level evidence grading system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs involving 148 participants (mean age range: 50.6-61.2 years; 26% female) were included. Stroke chronicity ranged from 7.6 days to 27.5 months post-onset. Four studies reported significant ULMF improvements with the combined intervention. However, activity and participation outcomes were inconsistently assessed, and results remained inconclusive. Methodological quality varied, with one study rated as excellent, two as good, one as fair, and one as poor. The risk of bias was rated high or with concerns in four out of five studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on qualitative synthesis, moderate-level evidence supports the combined use of tDCS and FES for improving ULMF in PwS. However, high variability in protocols, small sample sizes, and the increased risk of bias in most studies limit the strength of these conclusions. Standardized protocols and larger high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this combined intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":19130,"journal":{"name":"Neurology International","volume":"17 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12195863/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint17060089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) are established interventions to enhance upper limb motor function (ULMF) in people with stroke (PwS). However, evidence supporting their combined use remains limited and inconsistent. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of combined tDCS and FES for improving ULMF, activity, and participation in PwS.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from inception to December 2024. Randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥18 years) with acute, subacute, or chronic stroke undergoing combined tDCS and FES interventions were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro scale, and risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. A qualitative synthesis was performed employing a five-level evidence grading system.

Results: Five RCTs involving 148 participants (mean age range: 50.6-61.2 years; 26% female) were included. Stroke chronicity ranged from 7.6 days to 27.5 months post-onset. Four studies reported significant ULMF improvements with the combined intervention. However, activity and participation outcomes were inconsistently assessed, and results remained inconclusive. Methodological quality varied, with one study rated as excellent, two as good, one as fair, and one as poor. The risk of bias was rated high or with concerns in four out of five studies.

Conclusions: Based on qualitative synthesis, moderate-level evidence supports the combined use of tDCS and FES for improving ULMF in PwS. However, high variability in protocols, small sample sizes, and the increased risk of bias in most studies limit the strength of these conclusions. Standardized protocols and larger high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this combined intervention.

联合经颅直流电刺激和功能性电刺激对脑卒中患者上肢的治疗:系统综述。
背景:经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)和功能性电刺激(FES)是增强脑卒中(PwS)患者上肢运动功能(ULMF)的有效干预措施。然而,支持它们联合使用的证据仍然有限且不一致。本系统综述旨在评估tDCS和FES联合治疗在改善ULMF、活动和参与PwS方面的有效性。方法:系统检索MEDLINE、CINAHL、SPORTDiscus、CENTRAL、SCOPUS和Web of Science自成立至2024年12月的数据。纳入了随机对照临床试验(RCTs),涉及急性、亚急性或慢性卒中的成人(≥18岁),接受tDCS和FES联合干预。采用PEDro量表评估方法学质量,采用Cochrane RoB2工具评估偏倚风险。采用五级证据分级系统进行定性综合。结果:5项随机对照试验共纳入148名受试者(平均年龄50.6 ~ 61.2岁;26%为女性)。中风的慢性程度从发病后7.6天到27.5个月不等。四项研究报告联合干预显著改善了ULMF。然而,活动和参与结果的评估不一致,结果仍然不确定。方法质量各不相同,一项研究被评为优秀,两项被评为良好,一项被评为一般,一项被评为较差。在五分之四的研究中,偏倚风险被评为高或值得关注。结论:基于定性综合,中等水平的证据支持联合使用tDCS和FES改善PwS的ULMF。然而,方案的高可变性、小样本量以及大多数研究中偏倚风险的增加限制了这些结论的强度。需要标准化的方案和更大的高质量随机对照试验来证实这种联合干预的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurology International
Neurology International CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
69
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信