Publications

Detailed Information

Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Motor Recovery in Patients with Subacute Stroke

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorKim, Dae-Yul-
dc.contributor.authorLim, Jong-Yub-
dc.contributor.authorKang, Eun Kyoung-
dc.contributor.authorYou, Dae Sang-
dc.contributor.authorOh, Byung-Mo-
dc.contributor.authorPaik, Nam-Jong-
dc.contributor.authorOh, Min-Kyun-
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-04T07:10:12Z-
dc.date.available2012-07-04T07:10:12Z-
dc.date.issued2010-11-
dc.identifier.citationAMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION; Vol.89 11; 879-886ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn0894-9115-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/78451-
dc.description.abstractKim DY, Lim JY, Kang EK, You DS, Oh MK, Oh BM, Paik NJ: Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor recovery in patients with subacute stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2010;89:879-886. Objective: To test the hypothesis that 10 sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with occupational therapy elicit more improvement in motor function of the paretic upper limb than sham stimulation in patients with subacute stroke. Design: Eighteen patients with subacute stroke with hand motor impairment were randomly assigned to one of the three 10-day sessions of (a) anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the affected motor cortex, (b) cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the unaffected motor cortex, or (c) sham stimulation. Blinded evaluators assessed upper limb motor impairment and global functional state with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment score and the Modified Barthel Index at baseline, 1 day after stimulation, and 6 mos after stimulation. Results: Baseline scores for Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Modified Barthel Index were comparable in all groups (P > 0.05). At 6-mo follow-up, cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation led to a greater improvement in Fugl-Meyer Assessment than the sham procedure (P < 0.05). There was a significant inverse correlation between baseline Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Fugl-Meyer Assessment increase at 6 mos (r = -0.846; P < 0.01). Conclusions: Our results suggest a potentially beneficial effect of noninvasive cortical stimulation during rehabilitative motor training of patients who have suffered from subacute strokes.ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherLIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINSko_KR
dc.subjectStrokeko_KR
dc.subjectMotor Cortexko_KR
dc.subjectRehabilitationko_KR
dc.subjectTranscranial Direct Current Stimulationko_KR
dc.titleEffect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Motor Recovery in Patients with Subacute Strokeko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김대열-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor임종엽-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor강은경-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor유대상-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor오민균-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor오병모-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor백남종-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181f70aa7-
dc.citation.journaltitleAMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION-
dc.description.citedreferenceFritsch B, 2010, NEURON, V66, P198, DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.035-
dc.description.citedreferenceWilliams JA, 2009, J REHABIL MED, V41, P305, DOI 10.2340/16501977-0356-
dc.description.citedreferenceReis J, 2009, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V106, P1590, DOI 10.1073/pnas.0805413106-
dc.description.citedreferenceSchlaug G, 2008, ARCH NEUROL-CHICAGO, V65, P1571-
dc.description.citedreferenceVines BW, 2008, BMC NEUROSCI, V9, DOI 10.1186/1471-2202-9-103-
dc.description.citedreferenceMally J, 2008, BRAIN RES BULL, V76, P388, DOI 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.11.019-
dc.description.citedreferenceBoggio PS, 2007, RESTOR NEUROL NEUROS, V25, P123-
dc.description.citedreferenceLiepert J, 2007, RESTOR NEUROL NEUROS, V25, P461-
dc.description.citedreferenceBoggio PS, 2006, AM J PHYS MED REHAB, V85, P927, DOI 10.1097/01.phm.0000242635.88129.38-
dc.description.citedreferenceUswatte G, 2006, NEUROLOGY, V67, P1189-
dc.description.citedreferenceHummel FC, 2006, LANCET NEUROL, V5, P708-
dc.description.citedreferenceGandiga PC, 2006, CLIN NEUROPHYSIOL, V117, P845, DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.003-
dc.description.citedreferenceSalter K, 2006, J REHABIL MED, V38, P113, DOI 10.1080/16501970500314350-
dc.description.citedreferenceWassermann EM, 2005, TRENDS COGN SCI, V9, P503, DOI 10.1016/i.tics.2005.09.001-
dc.description.citedreferenceNitsche MA, 2005, J PHYSIOL-LONDON, V568, P291, DOI 10.1113/jphysiol.2005.092429-
dc.description.citedreferenceFregni F, 2005, NEUROREPORT, V16, P1551-
dc.description.citedreferenceKhedr EM, 2005, NEUROLOGY, V65, P466-
dc.description.citedreferenceHummel F, 2005, BRAIN, V128, P490, DOI 10.1093/brain/awh369-
dc.description.citedreferenceWard NS, 2004, ARCH NEUROL-CHICAGO, V61, P1844-
dc.description.citedreferenceMurase N, 2004, ANN NEUROL, V55, P400, DOI 10.1002/ana.10848-
dc.description.citedreferenceKwakkel G, 2003, STROKE, V34, P2181, DOI 10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD-
dc.description.citedreferenceRathore SS, 2002, STROKE, V33, P2718-
dc.description.citedreferenceLiebetanz D, 2002, BRAIN, V125, P2238-
dc.description.citedreferenceWolf SL, 2001, STROKE, V32, P1635-
dc.description.citedreferenceNitsche MA, 2000, J PHYSIOL-LONDON, V527, P633-
dc.description.citedreferenceCifu DX, 1999, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V80, pS35-
dc.description.citedreferenceDUNCAN PW, 1994, STROKE, V25, P1181-
dc.description.citedreferenceSHAH S, 1989, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V42, P703-
dc.description.citedreferenceFUGLMEYER AR, 1975, SCAND J REHABIL MED, V7, P13-
dc.description.tc1-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share