Abstract
Background In patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DoC), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was a promising intervention for it. However, uncertainties remain about the treatment effect and the optimal treatment strategy of the tDCS in the DoC.
Objective In this meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD), we assess whether utilizing tDCS as a treatment in DoC could improve patients’ behavioral performance and whether patient characteristics or tDCS protocol could modify the treatment effect.
Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 7, 2022, using the terms “persistent vegetative state,” “minimally conscious state,” “disorder of consciousness,” or “unresponsive wakefulness syndrome,” and “transcranial direct current stimulation” to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in English-language publication. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported pre- and post-tDCS Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) scores. From the included studies, any patients who had incomplete data were excluded. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the treatment effect of the tDCS compared with sham control. Additionally, a subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether patients’ baseline characteristics could modify the treatment effect and the optimal tDCS protocol.
Results We identified 145 papers, eight trials (including 181 patients) were finally included in the analysis, and one individual data were excluded because of incompletion. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a mean difference change in the CRS-R score of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.17-1.61) between tDCS and sham-control, favoring tDCS. The subgroup analysis showed that patients who were male or in minimally conscious state (MCS) were associated with a greater improvement in CRS-R score and that adopting 5 or more sessions of tDCS protocol might have a better treatment effect than just one session.
Conclusion tDCS can improve the behavioral performance of DoC patients. However, heterogeneity existed within the patients’ baseline condition and the stimulation protocol. There should be more exploration of the optimal tDCS protocol and the most beneficial patient group based on the mechanism of tDCS in the future.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (No.2018SHZDZX01)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The data were from the included studies in this meta-analysis. These studies shared their individual data within articles or the supplementary data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
