See the published version of this preprint at BMC Research Notes.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research note
Anna Gorsler
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5980-0983
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objective Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising adjuvant technique to improve standard care neglect therapy in patients suffering from stroke. Current densities in tDCS are modeled by tissue distribution in the brain. Therefore, we hypothesized that higher current densities are needed in aged stroke population to counteract age related brain volume loss. Here it is still unresolved whether blinding of participants can be achieved. Our aim was to test whether stroke patients with left-sided hemineglect are able to differentiate beyond chance active tDCS from sham stimulation at a current density of 0.8 A/m². Therefore, we investigated 12 early subacute stroke patients with left-sided hemineglect in a cross-over design with two stimulation settings (active/sham stimulation in randomized order). Stimulation was performed simultaneous to standard care neglect therapy with 0.8 A/m² and progress of neglect symptomatology was monitored during inpatient rehabilitation.
Results Our sample exhibited higher odds of correct guessing an active tDCS condition compared to wrongly judge an active tDCS condition as sham stimulation (Odds ratio 10.00, 95%CI: 0.65 - 154.40, p = 0.099). Therefore, we must question the feasibility of blinding success in studies with current densities of 0.8 A/m². Assessment in multisession protocols still warrants further investigation.
Keywords
visuospatial neglect, stroke, transcranial direct current stimulation, blinding procedure, pilot study
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Research Notes.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 13 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 09 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 17 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 15 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 16 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 11 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 10 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 10 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 25 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 14 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 25 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 24 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 24 Jul, 2020
Version 1
Posted 04 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 12 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 11 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 05 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Apr, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Neurology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Research Notes.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research note
Anna Gorsler
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5980-0983
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Research Notes.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 13 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 09 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 17 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 15 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 16 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 11 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 10 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 10 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 25 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 14 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 25 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 24 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 24 Jul, 2020
Version 1
Posted 04 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 12 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 11 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 05 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Apr, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Neurology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Research Notes.
Objective Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising adjuvant technique to improve standard care neglect therapy in patients suffering from stroke. Current densities in tDCS are modeled by tissue distribution in the brain. Therefore, we hypothesized that higher current densities are needed in aged stroke population to counteract age related brain volume loss. Here it is still unresolved whether blinding of participants can be achieved. Our aim was to test whether stroke patients with left-sided hemineglect are able to differentiate beyond chance active tDCS from sham stimulation at a current density of 0.8 A/m². Therefore, we investigated 12 early subacute stroke patients with left-sided hemineglect in a cross-over design with two stimulation settings (active/sham stimulation in randomized order). Stimulation was performed simultaneous to standard care neglect therapy with 0.8 A/m² and progress of neglect symptomatology was monitored during inpatient rehabilitation.
Results Our sample exhibited higher odds of correct guessing an active tDCS condition compared to wrongly judge an active tDCS condition as sham stimulation (Odds ratio 10.00, 95%CI: 0.65 - 154.40, p = 0.099). Therefore, we must question the feasibility of blinding success in studies with current densities of 0.8 A/m². Assessment in multisession protocols still warrants further investigation.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...