A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Patients with Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a group of dementias characterized by progressive loss of specific language functions with relative sparing of other cognitive domains. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been introduced as a potential therapeutic option for PPA. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in improving cognitive and language functions in patients with PPA.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2024 to identify randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing tDCS vs sham procedure in patients with PPA.

Results: Our analysis encompassed ten RCTs comparing the efficacy of tDCS against sham treatment, with a total of 167 participants. Due to the crossover design implemented in several studies, 94.5% of participants received active tDCS, while 91.1% received the sham intervention. The findings demonstrated significant improvements immediately post-tDCS (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.003-0.57, p = 0.05, I2 = 19%) and sustained benefits after two months or more (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.10-0.92, p = 0.01, I2 = 11%) in the untrained naming task. Similarly, for the trained naming tasks, significant improvement was observed (SMD 0.96; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.65; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), even after the end of the tDCS treatment, with effects persisting for up to two months. (SMD 0.64; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.13; p = 0.01; I2 = 8%). However, no significant improvements were observed in cognitive tasks, untrained comprehension, language, and trained semantic tasks.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that tDCS may be efficacious in augmenting naming tasks both acutely and over a prolonged period of up to two months. However, its effects on overall cognitive performance remain inconclusive. Further robust trials are warranted to elucidate its impact on cognitive function.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10072-025-08344-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

transcranial direct
8
direct current
8
current stimulation
8
primary progressive
8
progressive aphasia
8
language functions
8
efficacy tdcs
8
rcts comparing
8
tdcs sham
8
tdcs
5

Similar Publications