SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Scalp Stimulation Targets for Neurological Conditions-Evidence from Large-Scale Meta-Analyses.

J Integr Neurosci · 2022-04-01

DOI: 10.31083/j.jin2103083PMID: 35633164

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundNeurological disorders are a major source of suffering for patients worldwide. Scalp stimulation methods have been widely applied in treating a number of neurological disorders. Recently, our understanding of pathological mechanisms associated with neurological disorders has been enhanced significantly. Nevertheless, these findings have yet to be well-integrated into scalp stimulation treatments for neurological disorders.MethodsIn a previous study, we proposed new brain targets for scalp stimulation in the treatment of eight common mental disorders based on the results of a large-scale meta-analyses using Neurosynth. This study aims to extend our previous findings in identifying surface brain targets for seven common neurological disorders: Alzheimer's disease, aphasia, chronic pain, dementia, dyslexia, mild cognitive impairment, and Parkinson's disease, utilizing a similar method.ResultsWe hidentified seven to eight potential scalp stimulation targets for each disorder and used both 10-20 EEG system and acupuncture points to locate these targets to facilitate its clinical application.ConclusionsThe proposed target protocols may facilitate and extend clinical applications of scalp stimulation methods such as transcranial electrical stimulation and scalp acupuncture in the treatment of neurological disorders.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.