Posts Tagged systematic review

[Abstract + References] Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor recovery in adult patients with stroke, taking into account the parameters that could influence the motor recovery responses. The second aim was to identify the best tDCS parameters and recommendations available based on the enhanced motor recovery demonstrated by the analyzed studies. Our systematic review was performed by searching full-text articles published before February 18, 2019 in the PubMed database. Different methods of applying tDCS in association with several complementary therapies were identified. Studies investigating the motor recovery effects of tDCS in adult patients with stroke were considered. Studies investigating different neurologic conditions and psychiatric disorders or those not meeting our methodologic criteria were excluded. The main parameters and outcomes of tDCS treatments are reported. There is not a robust concordance among the study outcomes with regard to the enhancement of motor recovery associated with the clinical application of tDCS. This is mainly due to the heterogeneity of clinical data, tDCS approaches, combined interventions, and outcome measurements. tDCS could be an effective approach to promote adaptive plasticity in the stroke population with significant positive premotor and postmotor rehabilitation effects. Future studies with larger sample sizes and high-quality studies with a better standardization of stimulation protocols are needed to improve the study quality, further corroborate our results, and identify the optimal tDCS protocols.

References

  • Allman, C., Amadi, U., Winkler, A.M., Wilkins, L., Filippini, N., Kischka, U., Stagg, C.J., and Johansen-Berg, H. (2016). Ipsilesional anodal tDCS enhances the functional benefits of rehabilitation in patients after stroke. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 330re1.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ameli, M., Grefkes, C., Kemper, F., Riegg, F.P., Rehme, A.K., Karbe, H., Fink, G.R., and Nowak, D.A. (2009). Differential effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over ipsilesional primary motor cortex in cortical and subcortical middle cerebral artery stroke. Ann. Neurol. 66, 298–309.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Andrade, S.M., Batista, L.M., Nogueira, L.L., de Oliveira, E.A., de Carvalho, A.G., Lima, S.S., Santana, J.R., de Lima, E.C., and Fernández-Calvo, B. (2017a). Constraint-induced movement therapy combined with transcranial direct current stimulation over premotor cortex improves motor function in severe stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Rehab. Res. Pract. 2017, 6842549.Google Scholar
  • Andrade, S.M., Ferreira, J.J.A., Rufino, T.S., Medeiros, G., Brito, J.D., da Silva, M.A., and Moreira, R.N. (2017b). Effects of different montages of transcranial direct current stimulation on the risk of falls and lower limb function after stroke. Neurol. Res. 39, 1037–1043.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bikson, M., Grossman, P., Thomas, C., Zannou, A.L., Jiang, J., Adnan, T., Mourdoukoutas, A.P., Kronberg, G., Truong, D., Boggio, P., et al. (2016). Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimul. 9, 641–661.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bolognini, N. and Vallar, G. (2015). Stimolare il cervello. Manuale di stimolazione cerebrale non invasiva (pp. 1–224). il Mulino.Google Scholar
  • Bolognini, N., Pascual-Leone, A., and Fregni, F. (2009). Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity. J. Neuroeng. Rehab. 6, 8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bolognini, N., Vallar, G., Casati, C., Latif, L.A., El-Nazer, R., Williams, J., Banco, E., Macea, D.D., Tesio, L., Chessa, C., et al. (2011). Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tDC combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in post stroke patients. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 25, 819–829.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bortoletto, M., Rodella, C., Salvador, R., Miranda, P.C., and Miniussi, C. (2016). Reduced current spread by concentric electrodes in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). Brain Stimul. 9, 525–528.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bradnam, L.V., Stinear, C.M., Barber, P.A., and Byblow, W.D. (2012). Contralesional hemisphere control of the proximal paretic upper limb following stroke. Cereb. Cortex 22, 2662–2671.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brunelin, J., Mondino, M., Gassab, L., Haesebaert, F., Gaha, L., Suaud-Chagny, M.F., Saoud, M., Mechri, A., and Poulet, E. (2012a). Examining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a treatment for hallucinations in schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 169, 719–724.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brunoni, A.R., Zanao, T.A., Ferrucci, R., Priori, A., Valiengo, L., de Oliveira, J.F., Boggio, P.S., Lotufo, P.A., Benseñor, I.M., and Fregni, F. (2013c). Bifrontal tDCS prevents implicit learning acquisition in antidepressant-free patients with major depressive disorder. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 43, 146–150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Burke Quinlan, E., Dodakian, L., See, J., McKenzie, A., Le, V., Wojnowicz, M., Shahbaba, B., and Cramer, S.C. (2015). Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke. Ann. Neurol. 77, 132–145.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Byblow, W.D., Stinear, C.M., Barber, P.A., Petoe, M.A., and Ackerley, S.J. (2015). Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann. Neurol. 78, 848–859.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chang, M.C., Kim, D.Y., and Park, D.H. (2015). Enhancement of cortical excitability and lower limb motor function in patients with stroke by transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul. 8, 561–566.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).Google Scholar
  • Coin, A., Najjar, M., Catanzaro, S., Orru, G., Sampietro, S., Sergi, G., Manzato, E., Perissinotto, E., Rinaldi, G., Sarti, S., et al. (2009). A retrospective pilot study on the development of cognitive, behavioral and functional disorders in a sample of patients with early dementia of Alzheimer type. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 49, 35–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Conti, C.L. and Nakamura-Palacios, E.M. (2013). Bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex changes the drug-cued reactivity in the anterior cingulate cortex of crack-cocaine addicts. Brain Stimul. 7, 130–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Da Costa Santos, C.M., de Mattos Pimenta, C.A., and Nobre, M.R. (2007). The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem. 15, 508–511.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • De Vries, M.H., Barth, A.C., Maiworm, S., Knecht, S., Zwitserlood, P., and Flöel, A. (2010). Electrical stimulation of Broca’s area enhances implicit learning of an artificial grammar. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 22, 2427–2436.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Di Lazzaro, V., Dileone, M., Capone, F., Pellegrino, G., Ranieri, F., Musumeci, G., Florio, L., Di Pino, G., and Fregni, F. (2014). Immediate and late modulation of interhemispheric imbalance with bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation in acute stroke. Brain Stimul. 7, 841–848.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Feng, W., Wang, J., Chhatbar, P.Y., Doughty, C., Landsittel, D., Lioutas, V.A., and Schlaug, G. (2015). Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann. Neurol. 78, 860–870.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ferrucci, R., Mameli, F., Guidi, I., Mrakic-Sposta, S., Vergari, M., Marceglia, S., Cogiamanian, F., Barbieri, S., Scarpini, E., and Priori, A. (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation improves recognition memory in Alzheimer disease. Neurology 71, 493–498.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Figlewski, K., Blicher, J.U., Mortensen, J., Severinsen, K.E., Nielsen, J.F., and Andersen, H. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation potentiates improvements in functional ability in patients with chronic stroke receiving constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke 48, 229–232.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Nitsche, M., Bermpohl, F., Antal, A., Feredoes, E., Marcolin, M.A., Rigonatt, S.P., Silva, M.T., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2005). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory. Exp. Brain Res. 166, 23–30.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Lima, M.C., Ferreira, M.J., Wagner, T., Rigonatti, S.P., Castro, A.W., Souza, D.R., Riberto, M., Freedman, S.D., et al. (2006a). A sham controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. Pain 122, 197–209.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Santos, M.C., Lima, M., Vieira, A.L., Rigonatti, S.P., Silva, M.T., Barbosa, E.R., Nitsche, M.A., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2006b). Non invasive cortical stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 21, 1693–1702.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Gimenes, R., Valle, A.C., Ferreira, M.J., Rocha, R.R., Natalle, L., Bravo, R., Rigonatti, S.P., Freedman, S.D., Nitsche, M.A., et al. (2006c). A randomized, sham-controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum 54, 3988–3998.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fusco, A., Assenza, F., Iosa, M., Izzo, S., Altavilla, R., Paolucci, S., and Vernieri, F. (2014). The ineffective role of cathodal tDCS in enhancing the functional motor outcomes in early phase of stroke rehabilitation: an experimental trial. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 547290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Geroin, C., Picelli, A., Munari, D., Waldner, A., Tomelleri, C., and Smania, N. (2011). Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary comparison. Clin. Rehabil. 25, 537–548.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gladwin, T.E., den Uyl, T.E., Fregni, F.F., and Wiers, R.W. (2012). Enhancement of selective attention by tDCS: interaction with interference in a Sternberg task. Neurosci. Lett. 512, 33–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Grefkes, C. and Fink, G.R. (2014). Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. Lancet Neurol. 13, 206–216.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hamoudi, M., Schambra, H.M., Fritsch, B., Schoechlin-Marx, A., Weiller, C., Cohen, L.G., and Reis, J. (2018). Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances motor skill learning but not generalization in chronic stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 32, 295–308.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement (Park Square, Oxford: Rutledge).Google Scholar
  • Herrmann, C.S., Rach, S., Neuling, T., and Strüber, D. (2013). Transcranial alternating current stimulation: a review of the underlying mechanisms and modulation of cognitive processes. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hesse, S., Waldner, A., Mehrholz, J., Tomelleri, C., Pohl, M., and Werner, C. (2011). Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted arm training in subacute stroke patients: an exploratory, randomized multicenter trial. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 25, 838–846.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Holman, L., Head, M.L., Lanfear, R., and Jennions, M.D. (2015). Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: why we need blind data recording. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002190.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Horn, S.D., DeJong, G., Smout, R.J., Gassaway, J., James, R., and Conroy, B. (2005). Stroke rehabilitation patients, practice, and outcomes: is earlier and more aggressive therapy better? Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 86, 101–114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Horvath, J.C., Forte, J.D., and Carter, O. (2015a). Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul. 8, 535–550.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Horvath, J.C., Forte, J.D., and Carter, O. (2015b). Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: a systematic review. Neuropsychologia 66, 213–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hoyer, E.H. and Celnik, P.A. (2011). Understanding and enhancing motor recovery after stroke using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 29, 395–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F.C. and Cohen, L.G. (2006). Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke? Lancet Neurol. 5, 708–712.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F., Celnik, P., Giraux, P., Floel, A., Wu, W.H., Gerloff, C., and Cohen, L.G. (2005). Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain 128, 490–499.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F.C., Voller, B., Celnik, P., Floel, A., Giraux, P., Gerloff, C., and Cohen, L.G. (2006). Effects of brain polarization on reaction times and pinch force in chronic stroke. BMC Neurosci. 7, 73.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ilić, N.V., Dubljanin-Raspopović, E., Nedeljković, U., Tomanović-Vujadinović, S., Milanović, S.D., Petronić-Marković, I., and Ilić, T.V. (2016). Effects of anodal tDCS and occupational therapy on fine motor skill deficits in patients with chronic stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 34, 935–945.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ivanenko, Y.P., Poppele, R.E., and Lacquaniti, F. (2009). Distributed neural networks for controlling human locomotion: lessons from normal and SCI subjects. Brain Res. Bull. 78, 13–21.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Khedr, E.M., Shawky, O.A., El-Hammady, D.H., Rothwell, J.C., Darwish, E.S., Mostafa, O.M., and Tohamy, A.M. (2013). Effect of anodal versus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 7, 592–601.Google Scholar
  • Kim, D.Y., Lim, J.Y., Kang, E.K., You, D.S., Oh, M.K., Oh, B.M., and Paik, N.J. (2010). Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor recovery in patients with subacute stroke. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 89, 879–886.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Koo, W.R., Jang, B.H., and Kim, C.R. (2018). Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on somatosensory recovery after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 97, 507–513.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kwakkel, G. and Kollen, B.J. (2013). Predicting activities after stroke: what is clinically relevant? Int. J. Stroke 8, 25–32.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Langhorne, P., Coupar, F., and Pollock, A. (2009). Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 8, 741–754.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lee, S.J. and Chun, M.H. (2014). Combination transcranial direct current stimulation and virtual reality therapy for upper extremity training in patients with subacute stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 95, 431–438.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lefaucheur, J.P., Antal, A., Ayache, S.S., Benninger, D.H., Brunelin, J., Cogiamanian, F., Cotelli, M., De Ridder, D., Ferrucci, R., Langguth, B., et al. (2017). Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin. Neurophysiol. 128, 56–92.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Leon, D., Cortes, M., Elder, J., Kumru, H., Laxe, S., Edwards, D.J., Tormos, J.M., Bernabeu, M., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2017). tDCS does not enhance the effects of robot-assisted gait training in patients with subacute stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 35, 377–384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Liew, S.L., Santarnecchi, E., Buch, E.R., and Cohen, L.G. (2014). Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lindenberg, R., Renga, V., Zhu, L.L., Nair, D., and Schlaug, G. (2010). Bihemispheric brain stimulation facilitates motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Neurology 75, 2176–2184.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lopez-Espuela, F., Zamorano, J.D.P., Ramírez-Moreno, J.M., Jiménez-Caballero, P.E., Portilla-Cuenca, J.C., Lavado-García, J.M., and Casado-Naranjo, I. (2015). Determinants of quality of life in stroke survivors after 6 months, from a comprehensive stroke unit: a longitudinal study. Biol. Res. Nurs. 17, 461–468.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lüdemann-Podubecká, J., Bösl, K., Rothhardt, S., Verheyden, G., and Nowak, D.A. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation for motor recovery of upper limb function after stroke. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 47, 245–259.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Marshall, L., Molle, M., Hallschmid, M., and Born, J. (2004). Transcranial direct current stimulation during sleep improves declarative memory. J. Neurosci. 24, 9985.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mazzoleni, S., Tran, V.D., Iardella, L., Dario, P., and Posteraro, F. (2017). Randomized, sham-controlled trial based on transcranial direct current stimulation and wrist robot-assisted integrated treatment on subacute stroke patients: intermediate results. In: 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). IEEE, 555–560. doi:10.1109/icorr.2017.8009306.Google Scholar
  • Menezes, I.S., Cohen, L.G., Mello, E.A., Machado, A.G., Peckham, P.H., Anjos, S.M., Siqueira, I.L., Conti, J., Plow, E.B., and Conforto, A.B. (2018). Combined brain and peripheral nerve stimulation in chronic stroke patients with moderate to severe motor impairment. Neuromodulation 21, 176–183.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Miranda, P.C., Lomarev, M., and Hallett, M. (2006). Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117, 1623–1629.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D.G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Int. Med. 151, 264–269.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nicolo, P., Magnin, C., Pedrazzini, E., Plomp, G., Mottaz, A., Schnider, A., and Guggisberg, A.G. (2018). Comparison of neuroplastic responses to cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation and continuous theta burst stimulation in subacute stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 99, 862–872.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A. and Paulus, W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J. Physiol. 527, 633–639.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A. and Paulus, W. (2001). Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology 57, 1899–1901.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Schauenburg, A., Lang, N., Liebetanz, D., Exner, C., Paulus, W., and Tergau, F. (2003). Facilitation of implicit motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 619–626.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Seeber, A., Frommann, K., Klein, C.C., Rochford, C., Nitsche, M.S., Fricke, K., Liebetanz, D., Lang, N., Antal, A., et al. (2005). Modulating parameters of excitability during and after transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J. Physiol. 568, 291–303.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Kuo, M.F., Karrasch, R., Wächter, B., Liebetanz, D., and Paulus, W. (2009). Serotonin affects transcranial direct current-induced neuroplasticity in humans. Biol. Psychiatry 66, 503–508.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nowak, D.A., Bösl, K., Podubeckà, J., and Carey, J.R. (2010). Noninvasive brain stimulation and motor recovery after stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 28, 531–544.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nudo, R.J. and Milliken, G.W. (1996). Reorganization of movement representations in primary motor cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. J. Neurophysiol. 75, 2144–2149.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Platz, T. (2004). Impairment-oriented training (IOT): scientific concept and evidence-based treatment strategies. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 22, 301–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Plow, E.B., Carey, J.R., Nudo, R.J., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). Invasive cortical stimulation to promote recovery of function after stroke: a critical appraisal. Stroke 40, 1926–1931.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Polanía, R., Nitsche, M.A., and Paulus, W. (2011). Modulating functional connectivity patterns and topological functional organization of the human brain with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum. Brain Mapping 32, 1236–1249.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Priori, A., Berardelli, A., Rona, S., Accornero, N., and Manfredi, M. (1998). Polarization of the human motor cortex through the scalp. Neuroreport 9, 2257–2260.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rossi, C., Sallustio, F., Di Legge, S., Stanzione, P., and Koch, G. (2013). Transcranial direct current stimulation of the affected hemisphere does not accelerate recovery of acute stroke patients. Eur. J. Neurol. 20, 202–204.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Saeys, W., Vereeck, L., Lafosse, C., Truijen, S., Wuyts, F., and Van De Heyning, P. (2015). Transcranial direct current stimulation in the recovery of postural control after stroke: a pilot study. Disabil. Rehabil. 37, 1–7.Google Scholar
  • Sattler, V., Acket, B., Raposo, N., Thalamas, C., Loubinoux, I., Chollet, F., and Simonetta-Moreau, M. (2015). Anodal tDCS combined with radial nerve stimulation promotes hand motor recovery in the acute phase after ischemic stroke. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 29, 743–754.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Seo, H.G., Lee, W.H., Lee, S.H., Yi, Y., Kim, K.D., and Oh, B.M. (2017). Robotic-assisted gait training combined with transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic stroke patients: a pilot double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 35, 527–536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shekhawat, G.S., Searchfield, G.D., and Stinear, C.M. (2013a). Randomized trial of transcranial direct current stimulation and hearing aids for tinnitus management. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 28, 410–419.Google Scholar
  • Simonetti, D., Zollo, L., Milighetti, S., Miccinilli, S., Bravi, M., Ranieri, F., Magrone, G., Guglielmelli, E., Di Lazzaro, V., and Sterzi, S. (2017). Literature review on the effects of tDCS coupled with robotic therapy in post stroke upper limb rehabilitation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 268.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stinear, C.M. and Byblow, W.D. (2014). Predicting and accelerating motor recovery after stroke. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 27, 624–630.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Straudi, S., Fregni, F., Martinuzzi, C., Pavarelli, C., Salvioli, S., and Basaglia, N. (2016). tDCS and robotics on upper limb stroke rehabilitation: effect modification by stroke duration and type of stroke. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, 8.Google Scholar
  • Suzuki, Y., and Naito, E. (2012). Neuro-modulation in dorsal premotor cortex facilitates human multi-task ability. J. Behav. Brain Sci. 2, 372.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Terney, D., Chaieb, L., Moliadze, V., Antal, A., and Paulus, W. (2008). Increasing human brain excitability by transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. J. Neurosci. 28, 14147–14155.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Viana, R.T., Laurentino, G.E., Souza, R.J., Fonseca, J.B., Silva Filho, E.M., Dias, S.N., Teixeira-Salmela, L.F., and Monte-Silva, K.K. (2014). Effects of the addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to virtual reality therapy after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation 34, 437–446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wang, Y., Shen, Y., Cao, X., Shan, C., Pan, J., He, H., Ma, Y., and Yuan, T.F. (2016). Transcranial direct current stimulation of the frontal-parietal-temporal area attenuates cue-induced craving for heroin. J. Psychiatry Res. 79, 1–3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wu, D., Qian, L., Zorowitz, R.D., Zhang, L., Qu, Y., and Yuan, Y. (2013). Effects on decreasing upper-limb post stroke muscle tone using transcranial direct current stimulation: a randomized sham-controlled study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 94, 1–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Zehr, E.P. (2005). Neural control of rhythmic human movement: the common core hypothesis. Exercise Sport Sci. Rev. 33, 54–60.Google Scholar
  • Ziemann, U., Paulus, W., Nitsche, M.A., Pascual-Leone, A., Byblow, W.D., Berardelli, A., Siebner, H.R., Classen, J., Cohen, L.G., and Rothwell, J.C. (2008). Consensus: motor cortex plasticity protocols. Brain Stimul. 1, 164–182.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

via Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review : Reviews in the Neurosciences

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Effectiveness of home-based virtual reality on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes: a systematic review

Background: A 2015 systematic review evaluated the efficacy of utilizing virtual reality in vestibular rehabilitation programs. However, the biggest limitation with most of the included virtual reality systems was the associated cost of the equipment. In addition, home-based exercises are the preferred method of vestibular rehabilitation treatments.

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of home-based virtual reality systems on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes.

Methods: The following databases were examined: CINAHL Complete, ProQuest Medical Database, and PubMed. The following search terms were utilized: ‘video OR computer’ AND ‘vestibular’ AND ‘home’. The evidence level for all of the included articles was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and the methodological rigor for all of the included articles was evaluated using a 10-item tool created by Medlicott and Harris.

Results: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven articles were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. This systematic review found that home-based virtual reality interventions were able to effectively achieve the primary objectives of vestibular rehabilitation and that the use of these interventions was equally as effective as the use of a traditional vestibular rehabilitation program. In addition, it may be most beneficial to combine virtual reality with traditional vestibular rehabilitation.

Conclusions: Clinicians should consider using a combination of virtual reality and traditional vestibular rehabilitation when treating individuals who have been diagnosed with a vestibular dysfunction.

 

via Effectiveness of home-based virtual reality on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes: a systematic review: Physical Therapy Reviews: Vol 0, No 0

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] A Systematic Review of International Clinical Guidelines for Rehabilitation of People With Neurological Conditions: What Recommendations Are Made for Upper Limb Assessment? – Full Text

Background: Upper limb impairment is a common problem for people with neurological disabilities, affecting activity, performance, quality of life, and independence. Accurate, timely assessments are required for effective rehabilitation, and development of novel interventions. International consensus on upper limb assessment is needed to make research findings more meaningful, provide a benchmark for quality in clinical practice, more cost-effective neurorehabilitation and improved outcomes for neurological patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review, as part of the output of a European COST Action, to identify what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment.

Methods: We systematically reviewed published guidance on measures and protocols for assessment of upper limb function in neurological rehabilitation via electronic databases from January 2007–December 2017. Additional records were then identified through other sources. Records were selected for inclusion based on scanning of titles, abstracts and full text by two authors working independently, and a third author if there was disagreement. Records were included if they referred to “rehabilitation” and “assessment” or “measurement”. Reasons for exclusion were documented.

Results: From the initial 552 records identified (after duplicates were removed), 34 satisfied our criteria for inclusion, and only six recommended specific outcome measures and /or protocols. Records were divided into National Guidelines and other practice guidelines published in peer reviewed Journals. There was agreement that assessment is critical, should be conducted early and at regular intervals and that there is a need for standardized measures. Assessments should be conducted by a healthcare professional trained in using the measure and should encompass body function and structure, activity and participation.

Conclusions: We present a comprehensive, critical, and original summary of current recommendations. Defining a core set of measures and agreed protocols requires international consensus between experts representing the diverse and multi-disciplinary field of neurorehabilitation including clinical researchers and practitioners, rehabilitation technology researchers, and commercial developers. Current lack of guidance may hold-back progress in understanding function and recovery. Together with a Delphi consensus study and an overview of systematic reviews of outcome measures it will contribute to the development of international guidelines for upper limb assessment in neurological conditions.

Introduction

Worldwide prevalence of stroke in 2010 was 33 million, with 16.9 million people having a first stroke, of which 795,000 were American and 1.1 million European (1). It has been estimated that approximately one third of people fail to regain upper limb capacity, despite receiving therapy (2). This has important implications for both individuals and the wider society as reduced upper limb function is associated with dependence and poor quality of life for both patients and carers (35) and impacts on national economies (6).

While stroke has the highest prevalence, other neurological conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and Traumatic Brian Injury, have a significant incidence and there are often similarities in presentation, and treatment and therefore assessment. The worldwide incidence of SCI is 40–80 cases per million population and the estimated European mean annual rate of MS incidence is 4.3 cases per 100,000 (7). Recently, Kister et al. (8) reported that 60% of people with MS have impaired hand function. The impact of upper limb dysfunction on ADL is higher than in stroke, as both sides are often affected (9). Although dysfunction after SCI depends on level of injury, upper limb function is consistently cited as a health priority. The incidence rate of TBI in Europe is about 235 per 100,000 population (10). Outcome data among European countries are very heterogeneous. From the US however, it is known that about 1.1% of the population suffer a TBI resulting in long term disability (11).

 

Continue —>  Frontiers | A Systematic Review of International Clinical Guidelines for Rehabilitation of People With Neurological Conditions: What Recommendations Are Made for Upper Limb Assessment? | Neurology

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[REVIEW] A review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment?

Background: Upper limb impairment is a common problem for people with neurological disabilities, affecting activity, performance, quality of life and independence. Accurate, timely assessments are required for effective rehabilitation, and development of novel interventions. International consensus on upper limb assessment is needed to make research findings be more meaningful, provide a benchmark for quality in clinical practice, more cost-effective neurorehabilitation and improved outcomes for neurological patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review, as part of the output of a European COST Action, to identify what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment.

Methods: We systematically reviewed published guidance on measures and protocols for assessing upper limb function in neurological rehabilitation via electronic databases from January 2007 – December 2017. Additional records were then identified through other sources. Records were selected for inclusion based on scanning of titles, abstracts and full text by two authors working independently, and a third author if there was disagreement. Records were included if they referred to ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘assessment’ or ‘measurement’. Reasons for exclusion were documented.
Results: From the initial 552 records identified (after duplicates were removed), 34 satisfied our criteria for inclusion and only six recommended specific outcome measures and /or protocols. Records were divided into National Guidelines and other practice guidelines published in peer reviewed Journals. There was agreement that assessment is critical, should be conducted early and at regular intervals and that there is a need for standardised measures. Assessments should be conducted by a healthcare professional trained in using the measure and should encompass body function and structure, activity and participation.
Conclusions: We present a comprehensive, critical and original summary of current recommendations. Defining a core set of measures and agreed protocols requires international consensus between experts representing the diverse and multi-disciplinary field of neurorehabilitation including clinical researchers and practitioners, rehabilitation technology researchers and commercial developers. Current lack of guidance may hold-back progress in understanding function and recovery. Together with a Delphi consensus study and an overview of systematic reviews of outcome measures it will contribute to the development of international guidelines for upper limb assessment in neurological conditions.

 

via Frontiers | A review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment? | Neurology

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Sensory retraining of the leg after stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis – Full Text

This systematic review aimed to investigate the effects of interventions intended for retraining leg somatosensory function on somatosensory impairment, and secondary outcomes of balance and gait, after stroke.

Databases searched from inception to 16 January 2019 included Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Reference lists of relevant publications were also manually searched.

All types of quantitative studies incorporating interventions that intended to improve somatosensory function in the leg post stroke were retrieved. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used for quality appraisal. Standardised mean differences were calculated and meta-analyses were performed using preconstructed Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

The search yielded 16 studies, comprising 430 participants, using a diverse range of interventions. In total, 10 of the included studies were rated weak in quality, 6 were rated moderate, and none was rated strong. Study quality was predominantly affected by high risk of selection bias, lack of blinding, and the use of somatosensory measures that have not been psychometrically evaluated. A significant heterogeneous positive summary effect size (SES) was found for somatosensory outcomes (SES: 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04 to 1.01; I2 = 74.48%), which included joint position sense, light touch, and two-point discrimination. There was also a significant heterogeneous positive SES for Berg Balance Scale scores (SES: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.10 to 1.14; I2 = 59.05%). Gait SES, mainly of gait velocity, was not significant.

This review suggests that interventions used for retraining leg somatosensory impairment after stroke significantly improved somatosensory function and balance but not gait.

 

Somatosensory impairment is common after stroke, occurring in up to 89% of stroke survivors.1Proprioception and tactile somatosensation are more impaired in the leg than in the arm post stroke,2 with the frequency increasing with increasing level of weakness and stroke severity.2,3 Leg somatosensory impairment also has a significant impact on independence in daily activities3 and activity participation in stroke survivors,4 as well as predicts longer hospital stays and lower frequency of home discharges.5

Leg somatosensory impairment negatively influences balance and gait. Post-stroke plantar tactile deficits correlate with lower balance scores and greater postural sway in standing.6 Tactile and proprioceptive feedback provide critical information about weight borne through the limb.7 Accordingly, tactile and proprioceptive somatosensory deficits may hinder paretic limb load detection ability, potentially leading to reduced weight-bearing and contributing to balance impairment and falls post stroke.8 Indeed, stroke survivors with somatosensory impairment have a higher falls incidence compared to those without somatosensory impairment.3 In addition to reduced balance, impaired load detection may also contribute to gait asymmetry, particularly in the push-off phase.8 In addition, leg proprioception influences variance in stride length, gait velocity,9 and walking endurance in stroke survivors.10 In fact, leg somatosensory impairment has been shown to be the third most important independent factor for reduced gait velocity in stroke survivors.11

Two systematic reviews have previously investigated the effects of interventions for retraining somatosensory function after stroke.12,13 In the first review, published more than a decade ago, only four of the 14 included studies targeted the leg,12 while the second only included studies of the arm.13 Nevertheless, both reviews reported that there were insufficient data to determine the effectiveness of these interventions. A third systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of proprioceptive training14 only included 16 studies with stroke-specific populations, of which only two specifically addressed the leg. From these three reviews, the effects of interventions for post-stroke leg somatosensory impairment remain unclear. In addition, the first review12 was critiqued for including studies with participants without somatosensory impairment, and that did not report somatosensory outcomes.15 Therefore, a targeted systematic review, addressing the limitations of previous reviews, is required to elucidate the effects of interventions for post-stroke leg somatosensory impairment.

It is of interest to clinicians and researchers to evaluate the effects of leg somatosensory retraining on factors that may ultimately influence activity and participation, as this could change practice. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine the effects of post-stroke leg somatosensory retraining on somatosensory impairment, balance, gait, motor impairment, and leg function.[…]

 

Continue —> Sensory retraining of the leg after stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis – Fenny SF Chia, Suzanne Kuys, Nancy Low Choy, 2019

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] The Relationship of the FOUR Score to Patient Outcome: A Systematic Review -Full Text

Abstract

The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score assessment of consciousness replaces the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) verbal component with assessment of brainstem reflexes. A comprehensive overview studying the relationship between a patient’s FOUR score and outcome is lacking. We aim to systematically review published literature reporting the relationship of FOUR score to outcome in adult patients with impaired consciousness. We systematically searched for records of relevant studies: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and OpenGrey. Prospective, observational studies of patients with impaired consciousness were included where consciousness was assessed using FOUR score, and where the outcome in mortality or validated functional outcome scores was reported. Consensus-based screening and quality appraisal were performed. Outcome prognostication was synthesized narratively. Forty records (37 studies) were identified, with overall low (n = 2), moderate (n = 25), or high (n = 13) risk of bias. There was significant heterogeneity in patient characteristics. FOUR score showed good to excellent prognostication of in-hospital mortality in most studies (area under curve [AUC], >0.80). It was good at predicting poor functional outcome (AUC, 0.80–0.90). There was some evidence that motor and eye components (also GCS components) had better prognostic ability than brainstem components. Overall, FOUR score relates closely to in-hospital mortality and poor functional outcome. More studies with standardized design are needed to better characterize it in different patient groups, confirm the differences between its four components, and compare it with the performance of GCS and its recently described derivative, the GCS-Pupils, which includes pupil response as a fourth component.

Introduction

Clinicians’ management decisions about acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients are guided by assessments of the person’s current state and may also be influenced by their perceptions of its relation to the patient’s likely outcome.1 Internationally, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most widely used tool for assessing and communicating about a patient’s responsiveness.2 All the three components—eye, motor, and verbal responses—relate to outcome,3 as does the derived summation into the GCS score, albeit with some loss of information. Moreover, the GCS is combined with other features, such as pupil response, age, and injury characteristics, in numerous multi-variate prognostic models for predicting functional outcome and mortality.4–6 The difficulty in assigning a verbal response in an intubated patient and the separation of assessment of brain stem features, such as pupil response, in multi-variate modeling stimulated specialists in neurological intensive care to propose an alternative approach.

The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score was described by Wijdicks and colleagues. It is based on the eye and motor components of the Glasgow system, but the verbal component was removed and two new components added, namely brainstem reflexes and respiratory pattern. The FOUR score was developed for the assessment of level of consciousness in patients admitted to a neurointensive care unit.7 This was with the purpose of improving the standardized assessment of level of consciousness for patients who are intubated or have focal neurological deficits. Each component is a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4, with combined FOUR score ranging from 0 to 16, with 16 indicating the highest level of consciousness. Unlike the GCS, the eyes must be able to track or blink to command in order to obtain the maximum score of 4 points for eye component in FOUR score. Table 1 shows the scoring criteria for all components of FOUR score and GCS. The FOUR score approach emphasizes description of a patient by the combined score and the validity of the latter as an index of acute severity through its relationship to outcome. In order to provide a comprehensive assessment of the latter, we have performed a systematic review of the reported evidence, with focus on prognostic performance in groups of patients particularly targeted by FOUR score, namely those with a neurological diagnosis, intubated patients, and those admitted to dedicated neuroscience centers.

Table 1. Components of the FOUR Score and Glasgow Coma Scale
Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score Glasgow Coma Scale
Eye response
4 = eyelids open or opened, tracking, or blinking to command
3 = eyelids open but not tracking
2 = eyelids closed, but open to loud voice
1 = eyelids closed, but open to pain
0 = eyelids remain closed with pain
Eye opening
4 = spontaneous
3 = to speech
2 = to pain
1 = none
Motor response
4 = thumbs-up, fist, or peace sign
3 = localizing to pain
2 = flexion response to pain
1 = extension response to pain
0 = no response to pain or generalized myoclonus status
Best motor response
6 = obeying commands
5 = localizing to pain
4 = withdrawal from pain
3 = abnormal flexion response to pain
2 = extension response to pain
1 = none
Brainstem reflexes
4 = pupil and corneal reflexes present
3 = one pupil wide and fixed
2 = pupil or corneal reflexes absent
1 = pupil and corneal reflexes absent
0 = absent pupil, corneal and cough reflex
Verbal response
5 = orientated
4 = confused
3 = inappropriate words
2 = incomprehensible sounds
1 = none
Respiration
4 = not intubated, regular breathing pattern
3 = not intubated, Cheyne-Stokes breathing pattern
2 = not intubated, irregular breathing
1 = breathes above ventilator rate
0 = breathes at ventilator rate or apnea

FOUR, Full Outline of UnResponsiveness. […]

 

Continue —>  The Relationship of the FOUR Score to Patient Outcome: A Systematic Review | Journal of Neurotrauma

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Use of Kinesio taping in lower-extremity rehabilitation of post-stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

and purpose: The benefits of Kinesio taping (KT) in post-stroke rehabilitation have not been determined. This study aimed to evaluate its effects on lower-extremity rehabilitation in patients after a stroke.

METHODS:

A literature search was performed using EBSCOhost, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, and Wanfang Data through June 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of KT during lower-extremity, post-stroke rehabilitation were selected. Meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS:

A total of 14 RCTs of low to moderate quality were reviewed and included 783 participants. Results indicated that KT significantly improved patients’ lower extremity spasticity, motor function, balance, ambulation, gait parameters, and daily activities, with few adverse effects.

CONCLUSION:

KT may have positive effects on lower-extremity, post-stroke rehabilitation. Due to the limited number and quality of the research, additional studies are needed to identify KT benefits.

via Use of Kinesio taping in lower-extremity rehabilitation of post-stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. – PubMed – NCBI

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] The Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Poststroke Cognitive Function: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Introduction. Cognitive impairment after stroke has been associated with lower quality of life and independence in the long run, stressing the need for methods that target impairment for cognitive rehabilitation. The use of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on recovery of language functions is well documented, yet the effects of NIBS on other cognitive domains remain largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review that evaluates the effects of different stimulation techniques on domain-specific (long-term) cognitive recovery after stroke. 

Methods. Three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched for articles (in English) on the effects of NIBS on cognitive domains, published up to January 2018. 

Results. A total of 40 articles were included: randomized controlled trials (n = 21), studies with a crossover design (n = 9), case studies (n = 6), and studies with a mixed design (n = 4). Most studies tested effects on neglect (n = 25). The majority of the studies revealed treatment effects on at least 1 time point poststroke, in at least 1 cognitive domain. Studies varied highly on the factors time poststroke, number of treatment sessions, and stimulation protocols. Outcome measures were generally limited to a few cognitive tests. 

Conclusion. Our review suggests that NIBS is able to alleviate neglect after stroke. However, the results are still inconclusive and preliminary for the effect of NIBS on other cognitive domains. A standardized core set of outcome measures of cognition, also at the level of daily life activities and participation, and international agreement on treatment protocols, could lead to better evaluation of the efficacy of NIBS and comparisons between studies.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1545968319834900

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Effectiveness of the Bobath concept in the treatment of stroke: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Bobath concept in sensorimotor rehabilitation after stroke.

Materials and methods: A systematic literature review was conducted on the Bobath concept from the first publication available to January 2018, consulting PUBMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PEDro databases. Fifteen clinical trials were selected in two consecutive screenings. Two independent researchers rated the studies according to the PEDro scale from which a best evidence synthesis was derived to determine the strength of the evidence.

Results: The Bobath concept is not more effective than other approaches used in post-stroke rehabilitation. There is moderate evidence for the superiority of other therapeutic approaches such as forced use of the affected upper limb and constraint-induced movement therapy for motor control of the upper limb.

Conclusions: The Bobath concept is not superior to other approaches for regaining mobility, motor control of the lower limb and gait, balance and activities of daily living of patients after stroke. There is moderate evidence regarding the superior results of other approaches in terms of the motor control and dexterity of the upper limb. Due to the limitations concerning the methodological quality of the studies, further well-designed studies are needed.

  • Implications for rehabilitation
  • The Bobath concept is not superior to other approaches for patients after stroke.
  • The treatments that incorporate overuse of the affected upper limb via intensive treatments with high-repetitions with or without robotic aids present greater effectiveness in the motor control of the upper limb and dexterity.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09638288.2019.1590865?fbclid=IwAR1Rjzaw7YeLMsgLiHA7Q3ar9-cN6CS58uSdvFVHpNd1WU_mriL7Q2R1_fU&journalCode=idre20

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Technology-based cognitive training and rehabilitation interventions for individuals with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at heightened risk of developing dementia. Rapid advances in computing technology have enabled researchers to conduct cognitive training and rehabilitation interventions with the assistance of technology. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of technology-based cognitive training or rehabilitation interventions to improve cognitive function among individuals with MCI.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review using the following criteria: individuals with MCI, empirical studies, and evaluated a technology-based cognitive training or rehabilitation intervention. Twenty-six articles met the criteria.

Results

Studies were characterized by considerable variation in study design, intervention content, and technologies applied. The major types of technologies applied included computerized software, tablets, gaming consoles, and virtual reality. Use of technology to adjust the difficulties of tasks based on participants’ performance was an important feature. Technology-based cognitive training and rehabilitation interventions had significant effect on global cognitive function in 8 out of 22 studies; 8 out of 18 studies found positive effects on attention, 9 out of 16 studies on executive function, and 16 out of 19 studies on memory. Some cognitive interventions improved non-cognitive symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and ADLs.

Conclusion

Technology-based cognitive training and rehabilitation interventions show promise, but the findings were inconsistent due to the variations in study design. Future studies should consider using more consistent methodologies. Appropriate control groups should be designed to understand the additional benefits of cognitive training and rehabilitation delivered with the assistance of technology.

Background

Due to the aging of the world’s population, the number of people who live with dementia is projected to triple to 131 million by the year 2050 []. Development of preventative strategies for individuals at higher risk of developing dementia is an international priority []. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is regarded as an intermediate stage between normal cognition and dementia []. Individuals with MCI usually suffer with significant cognitive complaints, yet do not exhibit the functional impairments required for a diagnosis of dementia. These people typically have a faster rate of progression to dementia than those without MCI [], but the cognitive decline among MCI subjects has the potential of being improved []. Previous systematic reviews of cognitive intervention studies, both cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation, have demonstrated promising effects on improving cognitive function among subjects with MCI [].

Recently, rapid advances in computing technology have enabled researchers to conduct cognitive training and rehabilitation interventions with the assistance of technology. A variety of technologies, including virtual reality (VR), interactive video gaming, and mobile technology, have been used to implement cognitive training and rehabilitation programs. Potential advantages to using technology-based interventions include enhanced accessibility and cost-effectiveness, providing a user experience that is immersive and comprehensive, as well as providing adaptive responses based on individual performance. Many computerized cognitive intervention programs are easily accessed through a computer or tablet, and the technology can objectively collect data during the intervention to provide real-time feedback to participants or therapists. Importantly, interventions delivered using technology have shown better effects compared to traditional cognitive training and rehabilitation programs in improving cognitive function and quality of life []. The reasons for this superiority are not well-understood but could be related to the usability and motivational factors related to the real-time interaction and feedback received from the training system [].

Three recent reviews of cognitive training and rehabilitation for use with individuals with MCI and dementia suggest that technology holds promise to improve both cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes []. The reviews conducted by Coyle, et al. [] and Chandler, et al. [] were limited by accessing articles from only two databases, and did not comprehensively cover available technologies. Hill, et al. [] limited their review to papers published until July 2016 and included only older adults aged 60 and above. More technology-based intervention studies have been conducted since then, and only including studies with older adults 60 and above could limit the scope of the review given that adults can develop early-onset MCI in their 40s []. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to 1) capture more studies using technology-based cognitive interventions by conducting a more comprehensive search using additional databases 2) understand the effect of technology-based cognitive interventions on improving abilities among individuals with MCI; and 3) examine the effects of multimodal technology-based interventions and their potential superiority compared to single component interventions.[…]

 

Continue —-> Technology-based cognitive training and rehabilitation interventions for individuals with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: