Study Results
Results available
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
20 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2018-05-01
Study Completion Date
2020-02-21
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The goal of this study is to characterize individual responses to a single application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP), and to test which electrode configuration produces changes in brain excitability and motor function. Participants with UCP, ages 7-21 years, will be assigned to one of four tDCS groups. Using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, the investigators will assess cortical excitability before and at regular intervals up to 1 hour following tDCS. The knowledge gained from this study will advance the field through more targeted approaches of neuromodulatory techniques in this population and others, using individual characteristics to guide optimal treatment
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
A Study on Safety of tDCS One-shot in UCP
NCT03137940
Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy
COMPLETED
NA
Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Pediatric Hemiparesis
NCT01636661
Hemiparesis
COMPLETED
EARLY_PHASE1
Enhancing Motor Plasticity After Perinatal Stroke Using tDCS
NCT02170285
Perinatal Stroke
Cerebral Palsy
COMPLETED
PHASE2
tDCS and Bimanual Therapy for Children With Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy
NCT03402854
Cerebral Palsy
Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy
Spastic Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy
+2 more
RECRUITING
NA
Feasibility of tDCS as an Adjunct to Outpatient Physiotherapy in Children With ABI
NCT05637957
Acquired Brain Injury
Stroke
Traumatic Brain Injury
+1 more
UNKNOWN
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Hemiparesis, or weakness on one side of the body, is common following stroke early in life. The broader clinical diagnosis for this type of childhood movement impairment is unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP). Cerebral palsy effects about 3 out of every 1000 live births in the Unites States, and produces lifelong motor, sensory, and cognitive disability.
Neurorehabilitation has primarily focused on intensive motor training to encourage use of the affected extremities in an effort to produce use-dependent neuroplasticity in the brain. Such interventions are effective, but require a burdensome amount of time, 60-90 hours per week, for both the child and therapist. Furthermore, some children do not respond at all to such training.
Neuromodulation is a relatively new field that aims to influence the brain's neuronal activity through direct application of magnetic (TMS) or electric (tDCS) energy. It is thought the combination of neuromodulation and motor training may reduce the dosage of training needed, and would promote recovery to a greater extent for more individuals. Indeed, previous work in adult stroke demonstrate a benefit of combining repetitive TMS (rTMS) and tDCS with motor training, compared to training alone. These types of synergistic interventions are just beginning to be used in children with UCP, with some preliminary data showing potential benefit.
One of the many questions surrounding neuromodulatory interventions like tDCS is how to reliably predict changes in neuronal activity. The currently hypothesized effects of tDCS are polarity-specific: anodal tDCS depolarizes membranes resulting in increased in neuronal excitability; cathodal tDCS hyperpolarizes tDCS resulting in decreased neuronal excitability. Furthermore, these effects scale with the intensity of stimulation: the larger the direct current delivered, the greater the change in excitability. This framework has been used to guide almost all studies using tDCS to produce a change in brain function and resulting behavior.
More recently, the field is beginning to appreciate that this framework may be overly simplistic. For example, when a cognitive task is performed concurrently with tDCS, there are reported non-linear effects related to current intensity and direction of change in excitability. Such work has a significant impact on the use of tDCS in rehabilitation, which advocates for the pairing of stimulation with on-going activity.
One common approach to using tDCS in individuals with stroke is to target the non-lesioned hemisphere. Following stroke, there is an imbalance of communication between brain hemispheres. This communication, known as interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), is a normal control process whereby the activated motor cortex sends an inhibitory command to the opposite motor cortex to momentarily interrupt its activity, allowing for the execution of controlled unilateral movements. IHI is exaggerated in the non-lesioned hemisphere after stroke, resulting in increased inhibition on the lesioned hemisphere. Applying inhibitory current to the non-lesioned hemisphere may disinhibit this side and allow for recovery in the lesioned hemisphere.
IHI is mediated through fibers passing through the corpus callosum and can be examined non-invasively using TMS. First and foremost, IHI has been shown to exist in children and young adults, indicating that this mechanism is not exclusively a feature of the developed adult nervous system. The effect of NIBS to modulated IHI has been demonstrated in adults with stroke, but less clearly in children. One reason for this is a lack of data characterizing IHI in children after perinatal brain injury. It is feasible, through ongoing adaptive and maladaptive neuroplasticity, that IHI is weakly present (or not at all) in these children as compared to adults. As studies continue to focus on NIBS interventions targeting the non-lesioned hemisphere, a more comprehensive understanding of the motor control mechanisms present in children with UCP is needed to guide these interventions. Therefore, one objective of this study is to characterize IHI of both brain hemispheres in children with UCP.
At the moment, it is unclear what the acute effects of a single session tDCS are, when paired with motor training, on brain excitability or motor performance in children with and without UCP. This leads this investigative team to design the proposed study, which will offer insight into the mechanisms of tDCS and lead the field toward a better understanding of how tDCS be implemented in a neurorehabilitation setting for both children and potentially adults.
Purpose: To characterize motor cortex neurophysiology and to understand how one form of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) changes brain excitability and behavior in children diagnosed with cerebral palsy, as compared to children with typical development (CTD).
Aim 1: Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), characterize brain excitability, specifically interhemispheric inhibition, in children with CP and CTD.
Aim 2: Evaluate the immediate effect of tDCS on brain excitability and motor performance in children with UCP and CTD.
Aim 3: Compare the responses to tDCS in each with individual estimated electric field intensity from computational modeling.
Procedures:
This is a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded study. The intervention consists of a single, 20 minute session of tDCS paired with motor training (see Figure 2). Participants will be randomized to either real or sham tDCS. The participants and the members of the research team involved in assessments and testing will be blinded to intervention group (real or sham tDCS), but the other research staff/PI/Co-Is will be unblinded.
The investigators will complete TMS assessments of cortical excitability at Pre-test, as well as an MRI of the brain. Behavioral assessments of hand function and performance will also be included.
The intervention will last a total of 30 minutes, including preparatory time. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive real or sham tDCS. Children with presence of a lesioned hemisphere motor evoked potential (MEP) response may receive 1) ipsilesional anodal; 2) contralesional cathodal tDCS or 3) sham tDCS. Children without a lesioned hemisphere MEP may receive 1) contralesional anodal or 2) sham tDCS. Participants and their families will be blinded to group assignment. Participants will be unblinded after completing the study.
Immediately following the intervention, TMS and Behavioral assessments will be performed at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes following the intervention.
Study Duration: Each participant will complete the study in either one day (MRI and intervention, four hours total) or on two separate days (one hour MRI, and three hours intervention). If done on two days, the MRI and intervention will be separated by no longer than a two week (14 day) period.
Neurorehabilitation has primarily focused on intensive motor training to encourage use of the affected extremities in an effort to produce use-dependent neuroplasticity in the brain. Such interventions are effective, but require a burdensome amount of time, 60-90 hours per week, for both the child and therapist. Furthermore, some children do not respond at all to such training.
Neuromodulation is a relatively new field that aims to influence the brain's neuronal activity through direct application of magnetic (TMS) or electric (tDCS) energy. It is thought the combination of neuromodulation and motor training may reduce the dosage of training needed, and would promote recovery to a greater extent for more individuals. Indeed, previous work in adult stroke demonstrate a benefit of combining repetitive TMS (rTMS) and tDCS with motor training, compared to training alone. These types of synergistic interventions are just beginning to be used in children with UCP, with some preliminary data showing potential benefit.
One of the many questions surrounding neuromodulatory interventions like tDCS is how to reliably predict changes in neuronal activity. The currently hypothesized effects of tDCS are polarity-specific: anodal tDCS depolarizes membranes resulting in increased in neuronal excitability; cathodal tDCS hyperpolarizes tDCS resulting in decreased neuronal excitability. Furthermore, these effects scale with the intensity of stimulation: the larger the direct current delivered, the greater the change in excitability. This framework has been used to guide almost all studies using tDCS to produce a change in brain function and resulting behavior.
More recently, the field is beginning to appreciate that this framework may be overly simplistic. For example, when a cognitive task is performed concurrently with tDCS, there are reported non-linear effects related to current intensity and direction of change in excitability. Such work has a significant impact on the use of tDCS in rehabilitation, which advocates for the pairing of stimulation with on-going activity.
One common approach to using tDCS in individuals with stroke is to target the non-lesioned hemisphere. Following stroke, there is an imbalance of communication between brain hemispheres. This communication, known as interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), is a normal control process whereby the activated motor cortex sends an inhibitory command to the opposite motor cortex to momentarily interrupt its activity, allowing for the execution of controlled unilateral movements. IHI is exaggerated in the non-lesioned hemisphere after stroke, resulting in increased inhibition on the lesioned hemisphere. Applying inhibitory current to the non-lesioned hemisphere may disinhibit this side and allow for recovery in the lesioned hemisphere.
IHI is mediated through fibers passing through the corpus callosum and can be examined non-invasively using TMS. First and foremost, IHI has been shown to exist in children and young adults, indicating that this mechanism is not exclusively a feature of the developed adult nervous system. The effect of NIBS to modulated IHI has been demonstrated in adults with stroke, but less clearly in children. One reason for this is a lack of data characterizing IHI in children after perinatal brain injury. It is feasible, through ongoing adaptive and maladaptive neuroplasticity, that IHI is weakly present (or not at all) in these children as compared to adults. As studies continue to focus on NIBS interventions targeting the non-lesioned hemisphere, a more comprehensive understanding of the motor control mechanisms present in children with UCP is needed to guide these interventions. Therefore, one objective of this study is to characterize IHI of both brain hemispheres in children with UCP.
At the moment, it is unclear what the acute effects of a single session tDCS are, when paired with motor training, on brain excitability or motor performance in children with and without UCP. This leads this investigative team to design the proposed study, which will offer insight into the mechanisms of tDCS and lead the field toward a better understanding of how tDCS be implemented in a neurorehabilitation setting for both children and potentially adults.
Purpose: To characterize motor cortex neurophysiology and to understand how one form of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) changes brain excitability and behavior in children diagnosed with cerebral palsy, as compared to children with typical development (CTD).
Aim 1: Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), characterize brain excitability, specifically interhemispheric inhibition, in children with CP and CTD.
Aim 2: Evaluate the immediate effect of tDCS on brain excitability and motor performance in children with UCP and CTD.
Aim 3: Compare the responses to tDCS in each with individual estimated electric field intensity from computational modeling.
Procedures:
This is a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded study. The intervention consists of a single, 20 minute session of tDCS paired with motor training (see Figure 2). Participants will be randomized to either real or sham tDCS. The participants and the members of the research team involved in assessments and testing will be blinded to intervention group (real or sham tDCS), but the other research staff/PI/Co-Is will be unblinded.
The investigators will complete TMS assessments of cortical excitability at Pre-test, as well as an MRI of the brain. Behavioral assessments of hand function and performance will also be included.
The intervention will last a total of 30 minutes, including preparatory time. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive real or sham tDCS. Children with presence of a lesioned hemisphere motor evoked potential (MEP) response may receive 1) ipsilesional anodal; 2) contralesional cathodal tDCS or 3) sham tDCS. Children without a lesioned hemisphere MEP may receive 1) contralesional anodal or 2) sham tDCS. Participants and their families will be blinded to group assignment. Participants will be unblinded after completing the study.
Immediately following the intervention, TMS and Behavioral assessments will be performed at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes following the intervention.
Study Duration: Each participant will complete the study in either one day (MRI and intervention, four hours total) or on two separate days (one hour MRI, and three hours intervention). If done on two days, the MRI and intervention will be separated by no longer than a two week (14 day) period.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Cerebral Palsy
Perinatal Stroke
Periventricular Leukomalacia
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Blinding Strategy
DOUBLE
Participants
Outcome Assessors
Participants and families will be masked to intervention group. The research team members performing assessments will be masked to intervention group.
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Anodal ipsilesional Active tDCS
Anodal tDCS (excitatory) applied to the lesioned hemisphere. Participant must have lesioned hemisphere MEP.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Active tDCS
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Low-level (1.5 milliampere) current delivered to the scalp using saline-soaked sponges.
Cathodal contralesional Active tDCS
Cathodal tDCS (inhibitory) applied to the non-lesioned hemisphere. Participant must have lesioned hemisphere MEP.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Active tDCS
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Low-level (1.5 milliampere) current delivered to the scalp using saline-soaked sponges.
Anodal contralesional Active tDCS
Anodal tDCS (excitatory) applied to the non-lesioned hemisphere. Participant must not have lesioned hemisphere MEP.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Active tDCS
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Low-level (1.5 milliampere) current delivered to the scalp using saline-soaked sponges.
Sham tDCS
Sham tDCS applied in one of the above configurations
Group Type
SHAM_COMPARATOR
Sham tDCS
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Sham-setting--no electrical current delivered.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Active tDCS
Low-level (1.5 milliampere) current delivered to the scalp using saline-soaked sponges.
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Sham tDCS
Sham-setting--no electrical current delivered.
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
transcranial direct current stimulation
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Ages 7-21
* Able to follow two-step commands.
* Presence of an MEP in the non-lesioned hemisphere
* Clinical diagnosis of unilateral cerebral palsy
* Radiological evidence of stroke or periventricular leukomalacia
* Able to follow two-step commands.
* Presence of an MEP in the non-lesioned hemisphere
* Clinical diagnosis of unilateral cerebral palsy
* Radiological evidence of stroke or periventricular leukomalacia
Exclusion Criteria
* Evidence of seizure within 2 years
* Other neurological or metabolic conditions
* Is pregnant (females only)
* Presence of indwelling metal in the head (e.g. aneurysm clip) or medical device.
* Treatment with injectable agents (e.g. Botox) for spasticity management within 2 months
* Other neurological or metabolic conditions
* Is pregnant (females only)
* Presence of indwelling metal in the head (e.g. aneurysm clip) or medical device.
* Treatment with injectable agents (e.g. Botox) for spasticity management within 2 months
Minimum Eligible Age
7 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
21 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
NIH
Sponsor Role
collaborator
University of Minnesota
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Samuel Nemanich
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United States
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Christensen D, Van Naarden Braun K, Doernberg NS, Maenner MJ, Arneson CL, Durkin MS, Benedict RE, Kirby RS, Wingate MS, Fitzgerald R, Yeargin-Allsopp M. Prevalence of cerebral palsy, co-occurring autism spectrum disorders, and motor functioning - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, USA, 2008. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014 Jan;56(1):59-65. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12268. Epub 2013 Oct 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bolognini N, Vallar G, Casati C, Latif LA, El-Nazer R, Williams J, Banco E, Macea DD, Tesio L, Chessa C, Fregni F. Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tDCS combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in poststroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Nov-Dec;25(9):819-29. doi: 10.1177/1545968311411056. Epub 2011 Jul 29.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Figlewski K, Blicher JU, Mortensen J, Severinsen KE, Nielsen JF, Andersen H. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Potentiates Improvements in Functional Ability in Patients With Chronic Stroke Receiving Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy. Stroke. 2017 Jan;48(1):229-232. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.014988. Epub 2016 Nov 29.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Antal A, Terney D, Poreisz C, Paulus W. Towards unravelling task-related modulations of neuroplastic changes induced in the human motor cortex. Eur J Neurosci. 2007 Nov;26(9):2687-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05896.x. Epub 2007 Oct 26.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Duque J, Hummel F, Celnik P, Murase N, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Transcallosal inhibition in chronic subcortical stroke. Neuroimage. 2005 Dec;28(4):940-6. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.033. Epub 2005 Aug 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Murase N, Duque J, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2004 Mar;55(3):400-9. doi: 10.1002/ana.10848.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Zewdie E, Damji O, Ciechanski P, Seeger T, Kirton A. Contralesional Corticomotor Neurophysiology in Hemiparetic Children With Perinatal Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Mar;31(3):261-271. doi: 10.1177/1545968316680485. Epub 2016 Nov 24.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kirton A, Deveber G, Gunraj C, Chen R. Cortical excitability and interhemispheric inhibition after subcortical pediatric stroke: plastic organization and effects of rTMS. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Nov;121(11):1922-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.021.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Collange Grecco LA, de Almeida Carvalho Duarte N, Mendonca ME, Galli M, Fregni F, Oliveira CS. Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation combined with virtual reality for improving gait in children with spastic diparetic cerebral palsy: a pilot, randomized, controlled, double-blind, clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2015 Dec;29(12):1212-23. doi: 10.1177/0269215514566997. Epub 2015 Jan 20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology. 2001 Nov 27;57(10):1899-901. doi: 10.1212/wnl.57.10.1899.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gillick BT, Krach LE, Feyma T, Rich TL, Moberg K, Thomas W, Cassidy JM, Menk J, Carey JR. Primed low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and constraint-induced movement therapy in pediatric hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014 Jan;56(1):44-52. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12243. Epub 2013 Aug 21.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kirton A, Chen R, Friefeld S, Gunraj C, Pontigon AM, Deveber G. Contralesional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic hemiparesis in subcortical paediatric stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008 Jun;7(6):507-13. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70096-6. Epub 2008 May 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ciechanski P, Kirton A. Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation Can Enhance Motor Learning in Children. Cereb Cortex. 2017 May 1;27(5):2758-2767. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhw114.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kirton A, Ciechanski P, Zewdie E, Andersen J, Nettel-Aguirre A, Carlson H, Carsolio L, Herrero M, Quigley J, Mineyko A, Hodge J, Hill M. Transcranial direct current stimulation for children with perinatal stroke and hemiparesis. Neurology. 2017 Jan 17;88(3):259-267. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003518. Epub 2016 Dec 7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bikson M, Grossman P, Zannou AL, Kronberg G, Truong D, Boggio P, Brunoni AR, Charvet L, Fregni F, Fritsch B, Gillick B, Hamilton RH, Hampstead BM, Kirton A, Knotkova H, Liebetanz D, Liu A, Loo C, Nitsche MA, Reis J, Richardson JD, Rotenberg A, Turkeltaub PE, Woods AJ. Response to letter to the editor: Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimul. 2017 Sep-Oct;10(5):986-987. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.06.007. Epub 2017 Jul 12. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Giacobbe V, Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Pascual-Leone A, Rykman A, Zeiarati G, Fregni F, Dipietro L, Thickbroom GW, Edwards DJ. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and robotic practice in chronic stroke: the dimension of timing. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(1):49-56. doi: 10.3233/NRE-130927.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lazzari RD, Politti F, Santos CA, Dumont AJ, Rezende FL, Grecco LA, Braun Ferreira LA, Oliveira CS. Effect of a single session of transcranial direct-current stimulation combined with virtual reality training on the balance of children with cerebral palsy: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Mar;27(3):763-8. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.763. Epub 2015 Mar 31.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gillick BT, Feyma T, Menk J, Usset M, Vaith A, Wood TJ, Worthington R, Krach LE. Safety and feasibility of transcranial direct current stimulation in pediatric hemiparesis: randomized controlled preliminary study. Phys Ther. 2015 Mar;95(3):337-49. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130565. Epub 2014 Nov 20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Antal A, Alekseichuk I, Bikson M, Brockmoller J, Brunoni AR, Chen R, Cohen LG, Dowthwaite G, Ellrich J, Floel A, Fregni F, George MS, Hamilton R, Haueisen J, Herrmann CS, Hummel FC, Lefaucheur JP, Liebetanz D, Loo CK, McCaig CD, Miniussi C, Miranda PC, Moliadze V, Nitsche MA, Nowak R, Padberg F, Pascual-Leone A, Poppendieck W, Priori A, Rossi S, Rossini PM, Rothwell J, Rueger MA, Ruffini G, Schellhorn K, Siebner HR, Ugawa Y, Wexler A, Ziemann U, Hallett M, Paulus W. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Sep;128(9):1774-1809. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.001. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Krishnan C, Santos L, Peterson MD, Ehinger M. Safety of noninvasive brain stimulation in children and adolescents. Brain Stimul. 2015 Jan-Feb;8(1):76-87. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.012. Epub 2014 Oct 28.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gillick B, Rich T, Nemanich S, Chen CY, Menk J, Mueller B, Chen M, Ward M, Meekins G, Feyma T, Krach L, Rudser K. Transcranial direct current stimulation and constraint-induced therapy in cerebral palsy: A randomized, blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2018 May;22(3):358-368. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2018.02.001. Epub 2018 Feb 11.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Motor Learning in Children With Cerebral Palsy (CP)
NCT01852474
COMPLETED
NA
Enhancing Motor Learning in Children With Cerebral Palsy Using Transcranial Direct-current Stimulation
NCT04725019
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Strength Training Using Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation For Children With Cerebral Palsy
NCT00356343
UNKNOWN
PHASE1
Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation (tCDS) and Robotics for Children With Hemiplegia
NCT03145532
UNKNOWN
NA
Does tDCS Improve Motor Learning in Children With DCD?
NCT03453983
COMPLETED
NA
Brain Stimulation and Hand Training in Children With Hemiparesis
NCT02250092
COMPLETED
NA
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Treadmill in Cerebral Palsy
NCT07342660
COMPLETED
NA
Effects Obtained at Manual Function After Applying Anodic Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tCDS) in Children With Spastic Hemiparetic Cerebral Palsy
NCT06438666
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Risk of Falling in Cerebral Palsy Spastic Hemiplegic Children
NCT06730763
RECRUITING
NA
Pediatric Teleneuromodulation
NCT05071586
COMPLETED
NA
Virtual Reality Therapy and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Cerebral Palsy.
NCT04044677
COMPLETED
NA
Cerebral pAlsy Motor Promotion With Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (CAMP-tDCS)
NCT06239675
WITHDRAWN
NA
Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation in Childhood Dystonia
NCT01460771
UNKNOWN
PHASE2
Stimulation for Perinatal Stroke Optimizing Recovery Trajectories
NCT03216837
COMPLETED
PHASE2/PHASE3
Effect of tDCS on Postural Control of Children With DCD
NCT03892083
UNKNOWN
NA
Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Upper Extremity of Children With Hemiparesis
NCT04257981
COMPLETED
NA
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Versus Virtual Reality on Gait in Children With Spastic Diplegia
NCT05670522
COMPLETED
NA
FES Assisted Cycling in Children With CP
NCT04688424
COMPLETED
NA
Universal Exercise Unit Versus Functional Electrical Stimulation On Genu Recurvatum In Diplegic Cerebral Palsy
NCT06332729
COMPLETED
NA
tDCS and Robotic Training in Adults With Cerebral Palsy
NCT03038269
UNKNOWN
NA
Effects of Lower Extremities Cycling Functional Electrıcal Stimulation Training in Cerebral Palsy
NCT03600012
COMPLETED
NA
Robotic Rehabilitation and Brain Stimulation for Children With Hemiparetic Cerebral Palsy
NCT04233710
UNKNOWN
PHASE2
The Effectiveness of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Spastic Diplegia Cerebral Palsy
NCT05198921
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA