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 Neglect after stroke is a disabling disorder and its rehabilitation is a major challenge. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) seems to be a promising adjuvant technique to improve standard care neglect therapy. Since electric fields are influenced by age-related factors higher current densities are probably needed for effective treatment in aged stroke patients. The validation of treatment efficacy requires sham-controlled experiments but increased current densities might comprise blinding. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study to test sham adequacy when using current density of 0.8 A/m2. Whether especially neglect patients who mainly suffer from perceptual and attentional deficits are able to differentiate beyond chance active from sham tDCS was investigated in a cross-over design (active/sham stimulation, randomized order) in 12 early subacute patients with left-sided hemineglect. Stimulation was performed simultaneous to standard care neglect therapy with 0.8 A/m². Progress of neglect symptomatology was also monitored during inpatient rehabilitation.
Results 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) were observed. Therefore, blinding success remains debatable in neglect studies with current densities of 0.8 A/m² and 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
Version 2
Posted 30 Jul, 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
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
Version 2
Posted 30 Jul, 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
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 Neglect after stroke is a disabling disorder and its rehabilitation is a major challenge. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) seems to be a promising adjuvant technique to improve standard care neglect therapy. Since electric fields are influenced by age-related factors higher current densities are probably needed for effective treatment in aged stroke patients. The validation of treatment efficacy requires sham-controlled experiments but increased current densities might comprise blinding. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study to test sham adequacy when using current density of 0.8 A/m2. Whether especially neglect patients who mainly suffer from perceptual and attentional deficits are able to differentiate beyond chance active from sham tDCS was investigated in a cross-over design (active/sham stimulation, randomized order) in 12 early subacute patients with left-sided hemineglect. Stimulation was performed simultaneous to standard care neglect therapy with 0.8 A/m². Progress of neglect symptomatology was also monitored during inpatient rehabilitation.
Results 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) were observed. Therefore, blinding success remains debatable in neglect studies with current densities of 0.8 A/m² and still warrants further investigation.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...