↓ Skip to main content

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009760.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernhard Elsner, Joachim Kugler, Marcus Pohl, Jan Mehrholz

Abstract

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and aphasia among survivors is common. Current speech and language therapy (SLT) strategies have only limited effectiveness in improving aphasia. A possible adjunct to SLT for improving SLT outcomes might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability and hence to improve aphasia. To assess the effects of tDCS for improving aphasia in people who have had a stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, November 2014), MEDLINE (1948 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), CINAHL (1982 to November 2014), AMED (1985 to November 2014), Science Citation Index (1899 to November 2014) and seven additional databases. We also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers. We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised controlled cross-over trials (from which we only analysed the first period as a parallel group design) comparing tDCS versus control in adults with aphasia due to stroke. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. If necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trials. We included 12 trials involving 136 participants for qualitative assessment. None of the included studies used any formal outcome measure for our primary outcome measure of functional communication - that is, measuring aphasia in a real-life communicative setting. We did a meta-analysis of six trials with 66 participants of correct picture naming as our secondary outcome measure, which demonstrated that tDCS may not enhance SLT outcomes (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.92; P = 0.19; I² = 0%; inverse variance method with random-effects model; with a higher SMD reflecting benefit from tDCS). We found no studies examining the effect of tDCS on cognition in stroke patients with aphasia. We did not find reported adverse events and the proportion of dropouts was comparable between groups. Currently there is no evidence of the effectiveness of tDCS (anodal tDCS, cathodal tDCS and bihemispheric tDCS) versus control (sham tDCS) for improving functional communication, language impairment and cognition in people with aphasia after stroke. Further RCTs are needed in this area to determine the effectiveness of this intervention. Authors of future research should adhere to the CONSORT Statement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 122 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 24%
Researcher 24 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 12 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 29%
Neuroscience 19 15%
Psychology 17 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 20 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2019.
All research outputs
#488,765
of 14,183,836 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,420
of 10,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,322
of 228,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,183,836 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.