Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Issue title: Special Section: Language System Plasticity in Aphasia
Guest editors: Roy Hamilton
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Shah-Basak, Priyanka P.a; 1 | Wurzman, Rachelb; 1 | Purcell, Juliann B.b | Gervits, Felixb | Hamilton, Royb; c; d; *
Affiliations: [a] Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada | [b] Laboratory for Cognition and Neural Stimulation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA | [c] Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA | [d] Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Roy H. Hamilton, MD, MS, Goddard Laboratories, Room 518, University of Pennsylvania, 3710 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Tel.: +1 215 573 7090; Fax: +1 215 898 1982; E-mail: [email protected].
Note: [1] Co-first authors.
Abstract: Purpose: Aphasia—acquired loss of the ability to understand or express language—is a common and debilitating neurological consequence of stroke. Evidence suggests that transcranial magnetic (TMS) or direct current stimulation (tDCS) can significantly improve language outcomes in patients with aphasia (PWA). However, the relative efficacy between TMS and tDCS has not yet been explored. Mechanistic and methodological differences, patient inclusion/exclusion criteria and experimental designs may influence observed treatment benefits. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of TMS and tDCS treatment studies in PWA. Standard mean difference (SMD) for changes in picture naming accuracy was estimated; pooled SMDs were compared using a random-effects model. Results: Eight TMS (N = 143) and 8 tDCS studies (N = 140) met our inclusion criteria. Pooled SMDs of 0.448 (p < 0.001) in favor of TMS, and 0.395 (p < 0.001) in favor of tDCS were found. Between-subject designs were more common in subacute and within/crossover designs in chronic patients. TMS SMDs were significant in both chronic (SMD = 0.348) and subacute (SMD = 0.667) populations while those for tDCS were significant in chronic (SMD = 0.320) but not in subacute (SMD = 0.283) PWA. Conclusions: The magnitude of treatment effects appears to be consistent between TMS and tDCS in PWA. Larger-scale clinical trials should further substantiate our findings.
Keywords: rTMS, tDCS, neurorehabilitation, neuroplasticity, meta-analysis, stroke, aphasia, language recovery
DOI: 10.3233/RNN-150616
Journal: Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 537-558, 2016
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]