scholarly journals Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation for the Acute Treatment of Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 146-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stevan Nikolin ◽  
Angelo Alonzo ◽  
Donel Martin ◽  
Veronica Gálvez ◽  
Sara Buten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Random Noise ◽  
Transcranial Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Depression Severity ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation ◽  
Treatment Of Depression

Abstract Background Transcranial electrical stimulation has broad potential as a treatment for depression. Transcranial random noise stimulation, which delivers randomly fluctuating current intensities, may have greater cortical excitatory effects compared with other forms of transcranial electrical stimulation. We therefore aimed to investigate the antidepressant efficacy of transcranial random noise stimulation. Methods Depressed participants were randomly assigned by computer number generator to receive 20 sessions of either active or sham transcranial random noise stimulation over 4 weeks in a double-blinded, parallel group randomized-controlled trial. Transcranial random noise stimulation was delivered for 30 minutes with a direct current offset of 2 mA and a random noise range of 2 mA. Primary analyses assessed changes in depression severity using the Montgomery-Asperg Depression Rating Scale. Neuroplasticity, neuropsychological, and safety outcomes were analyzed as secondary measures. Results Sixty-nine participants were randomized, of which 3 discontinued treatment early, leaving 66 (sham n = 34, active n = 32) for per-protocol analysis. Depression severity scores reduced in both groups (Montgomery-Asperg Depression Rating Scale reduction in sham = 7.0 [95% CI = 5.0–8.9]; and active = 5.2 [95% CI = 3.2–7.3]). However, there were no differences between active and sham groups in the reduction of depressive symptoms or the number of participants meeting response (sham = 14.7%; active = 3.1%) and remission criteria (sham = 5.9%; active = 0%). Erythema, paresthesia, fatigue, and dizziness/light-headedness occurred more frequently in the active transcranial random noise stimulation group. Neuroplasticity, neuropsychological, and acute cognitive effects were comparable between groups. Conclusion Our results do not support the use of transcranial random noise stimulation with the current stimulation parameters as a therapeutic intervention for the treatment of depression. Clinical trial registration at clinicaltrials gov/NCT01792414.

scholarly journals Transcranial random noise stimulation for the acute treatment of depression: a randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stevan Nikolin ◽  
Angelo Alonzo ◽  
Donel Martin ◽  
Veronica Gálvez ◽  
Sara Buten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Random Noise ◽  
Transcranial Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Depression Severity ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation ◽  
Treatment Of Depression

AbstractBackgroundTranscranial electrical stimulation has broad potential as a treatment for depression. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), which delivers randomly fluctuating current intensities, may have greater cortical excitatory effects compared to other forms of transcranial electrical stimulation. We therefore aimed to investigate the antidepressant efficacy of tRNS.MethodsDepressed participants were randomly assigned by computer number generator to receive 20 sessions of either active or sham tRNS over four weeks in a double-blinded, parallel group randomized-controlled trial. tRNS was delivered for 30mins with a direct current offset of 2mA and a random noise range of 2mA. Primary analyses assessed changes in depression severity using the Montgomery-Asperg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Neuroplasticity, neuropsychological, and safety outcomes were analysed as secondary measures.Results69 participants were randomised, of which three discontinued treatment early leaving 66 (sham n = 34, active n = 32) for per-protocol analysis. Depression severity scores reduced in both groups (MADRS reduction in sham = 7.0 [95%CI 5.0-8.9]; and active = 5.2 [95%CI 3.2-7.3]). However, there were no differences between active and sham groups in the reduction of depressive symptoms, or the number of participants meeting response (sham = 14.7%; active = 3.1%) and remission criteria (sham = 5.9%; active = 0%). Erythema, paraesthesia, fatigue, and dizziness/light-headedness occurred more frequently in the active tRNS group. Neuroplasticity, neuropsychological and acute cognitive effects were comparable between groups.ConclusionOur results do not support the use of tRNS with the current stimulation parameters as a therapeutic intervention for the treatment of depression.Clinical trial registration at clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01792414.Significance StatementThis is the first randomized sham-controlled clinical trial of a four-week course of transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) for the treatment of depression. tRNS is a relatively novel form of non-invasive electrical stimulation that uses mild, randomly fluctuating currents to constrain homeostatic mechanisms and increase brain excitability. We investigated effects across multiple validated mood outcomes and comprehensively assessed cognitive, neurophysiological, and physical side effects to examine the safety of tRNS. We found no differences between active and sham conditions for all mood outcomes, and are thus unable to lend support for tRNS as an effective treatment for depression. We found tRNS to be well-tolerated with no adverse acute cognitive, neuropsychological or severe phyisical side effects, suggesting a course of 20 repeated sessions can be delivered safely.

scholarly journals Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation for the Acute Treatment of Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (9) ◽  
pp. S455-S456
Author(s):  
Stevan Nikolin ◽  
Angelo Alonzo ◽  
Donel Martin ◽  
Veronica Gálvez ◽  
Sara Buten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Acute Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Random Noise ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation ◽  
Treatment Of Depression

Sham transcranial electrical stimulation and its effects on corticospinal excitability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thusharika D. Dissanayaka ◽  
Maryam Zoghi ◽  
Michael Farrell ◽  
Gary F. Egan ◽  
Shapour Jaberzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Noise ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Transcranial Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Placebo Effects ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation ◽  
Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation

AbstractSham stimulation is used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy of active stimulation and placebo effects. It should mimic the characteristics of active stimulation to achieve blinding integrity. The present study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to identify the effects of sham transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) – including anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS, c-tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) – on corticospinal excitability (CSE), compared to baseline in healthy individuals. Electronic databases – PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Science Direct and MEDLINE (Ovid) – were searched for RCTs of tES from 1990 to March 2017. Thirty RCTs were identified. Using a random-effects model, meta-analysis of a-tDCS, c-tDCS, tACS, tRNS and tPCS studies showed statistically non-significant pre-post effects of sham interventions on CSE. This review found evidence for statically non-significant effects of sham tES on CSE.

Multitarget Transcranial Electrical Stimulation for Freezing of Gait: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad Manor ◽  
Moria Dagan ◽  
Talia Herman ◽  
Natalia A. Gouskova ◽  
Veronique G. Vanderhorst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Freezing Of Gait ◽  
Transcranial Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Combined with Exercises versus an Exercise Program on the Pain and the Function in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aline Mizusaki Imoto ◽  
Stella Peccin ◽  
Kelson Nonato Gomes da Silva ◽  
Lucas Emmanuel Pedro de Paiva Teixeira ◽  
Marcelo Ismael Abrahão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Functional Improvement ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. To investigate the effect of 8 weeks of NMES + Ex (neuromuscular electrical stimulation combined with exercises) on pain and functional improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to exercise (Ex) alone.Design. Randomized controlled trial.Setting. A specialty outpatient clinic.Participants. Patients (N=100; women = 86, men = 14; age range, 50–75 years) with knee OA.Interventions. Participants were randomly assigned to NMES + Ex or Ex group.Outcome Measures. Numerical Rating Scale 0 to 10 (NRS) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes used were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC).Results. Following the interventions, a statistically significant improvement in both groups was observed in all outcomes assessed. For the comparison between the groups, no statistically significant difference was found between the NMES + Ex and the Ex groups in NRS (P=0.52), TUG test (P=0.12), and aspects of WOMAC: pain (P=0.26), function (P=0.23), and stiffness (P=0.63).Conclusion. The addition of NMES to exercise did not improve the outcomes assessed in knee OA patients. This study was registered at the Australian Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN012607000357459).

scholarly journals Boxing vs Sensory Exercise for Parkinson’s Disease: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 154596832110231
Author(s):  
Kishoree Sangarapillai ◽  
Benjamin M. Norman ◽  
Quincy J. Almeida
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Motor Symptoms ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Double Blinded

Background. Exercise is increasingly becoming recognized as an important adjunct to medications in the clinical management of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Boxing and sensory exercise have shown immediate benefits, but whether they continue beyond program completion is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the effects of boxing and sensory training on motor symptoms of PD, and whether these benefits remain upon completion of the intervention. Methods. In this 20-week double-blinded randomized controlled trial, 40 participants with idiopathic PD were randomized into 2 treatment groups, (n = 20) boxing or (n = 20) sensory exercise. Participants completed 10 weeks of intervention. Motor symptoms were assessed at (week 0, 10, and 20) using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III). Data were analyzed using SPSS, and repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Results. A significant interaction effect between groups and time were observed F(1, 39) = 4.566, P = .036, where the sensory group improved in comparison to the boxing group. Post hoc analysis revealed that in comparison to boxing, the effects of exercise did not wear off at washout (week 20) P < .006. Conclusion. Future rehabilitation research should incorporate similar measures to explore whether effects of exercise wear off post intervention.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the short-term efficacy of local analgesic (lidocaine) and opioid analgesic (sufentanil) on patients with centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482110217
Author(s):  
Hang Yang ◽  
Honglin Chen ◽  
Bing Hu
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Opioid Analgesic ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Term Efficacy

Background: Centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome (CAPS) is characterized by continuous or frequently recurring abdominal pain and can result in functional loss across several life domains. The efficacy of the present management methods has not been established yet. We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial to explore the short-term efficacy of local analgesic (lidocaine) and opioid analgesic (sufentanil) in patients with CAPS. Methods: We consecutively enrolled 130 patients who met the Rome IV CAPS criteria and divided them into the sufentanil + lidocaine (S + L) group and sufentanil (S) group. Patients completed the pain rating scales, including the numeric rating scale (NRS) and verbal rating scale (VRS), 60 min before colonoscopy. All the patients were initially administered sufentanil. In the S + L group, we sprayed a 5 ml solution of lidocaine on the surface of ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon during colonoscope withdrawal, while 5 ml saline was sprayed in the S group. Follow up was performed 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months after colonoscopy, to complete the pain scaling. Results: A comparison of the NRS and VRS showed that there were no significant differences between the S + L and S groups and within each group ( p > 0.05). Conclusions: Local analgesic lidocaine and opioid analgesic sufentanil showed negative efficacy during short-term observation. The opioid receptor blocker sufentanil did not worsen symptoms in patients with CAPS after colonoscopy under general anesthesia in the short term. [chictr.org.cn, Chinese Clinical Trial Identifier, ChiCTR-IOR-16008187]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document