Updates on Neurostimulation: From Mechanistic Principles to Clinical Applications

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Mental Health".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 25 June 2024 | Viewed by 1714

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Medical Engineering, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan
Interests: neural engineering; brain stimulation; electromagnetics; neuroscience

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
LEICI Institute, National University of La Plata, CONICET, La Plata 1900, Argentina
Interests: electromagnetic modeling; brain stimulation; electroencephalography; electrical impedance tomography

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Neurostimulation techniques offer a therapeutic alternative to pharmacological treatments in neurological disorders, including those disorders that are resistant to current treatments. These techniques include non-invasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS); invasive brain stimulation, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS); or peripheral stimulation, such as vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Neurostimulation can also serve as a diagnostic tool, such as in-depth electrical stimulation mapping (DESM) for drug-resistant epilepsy patients. Neuromodulation research has experienced significant growth in the last 20 years, and better treatments and new clinical applications are expected in the following years. Optimizing neuromodulation to favor clinical responses is an ongoing work.

However, the physiological mechanisms underlying neurostimulation are not yet fully understood. Measuring neurophysiological responses to stimulation (magnetoencephalography (MEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), or electroencephalography (EEG), electromyography (EMG), among others) can help us to better understand the neurological mechanism and main factors contributing to better clinical outcomes. Computational physics has also permitted quantifying and determining the interaction of physical quantity (i.e., induced electric field) on the target neural elements as the basis of the neuromodulation process, while optimizing the simulation parameters.

This Special Issue welcomes advances in understanding the mechanistic foundations of neurostimulation, proposals of novel or enhanced methodologies, and clinical applications through in vivo, in vitro, ex vivo, in silico and simulation studies. Original research articles and systematic reviews/meta-analyses are welcomed.

Dr. Jose Gomez Tames
Dr. Mariano Fernández-Corazza
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • brain stimulation
  • non-invasive brain stimulation
  • deep brain stimulation
  • neuroimaging
  • computational modelling
  • therapy

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

19 pages, 4396 KiB  
Article
Efficacy of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Treating Depression in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials
by Chun-Hung Chang, Po-Han Chou, Hao-Yu Chuang, Chi-Yu Yao, Wei-Jen Chen and Hsin-Chi Tsai
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(18), 6030; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12186030 - 18 Sep 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1180
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to ascertain the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS)—comprising repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)—for depression in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. Methods: Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, [...] Read more.
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to ascertain the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS)—comprising repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)—for depression in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. Methods: Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 28 January 2023. Random-effects models assessed the treatment effects, and heterogeneity was evaluated through I2 statistics and funnel plot inspection. Results: From 10 trials (234 participants; 8 rTMS, 2 tDCS), NIBS was found significantly more effective than sham in alleviating depressive symptoms (SMD: 0.588, 95% CI: 0.264–0.912; p < 0.001). rTMS, specifically, showed higher efficacy (SMD: 0.707, 95% CI: 0.306–1.108; p = 0.001) compared to sham, whereas tDCS outcomes were inconclusive (SMD: 0.271, 95% CI: −0.230 to 0.771; p = 0.289). Meta-regression found no correlation with the number of sessions, treatment intensity, or total dose. Notably, while post-treatment effects were significant, they diminished 1–2 months post intervention. Adverse events associated with NIBS were minimal, with no severe outcomes like seizures and suicide reported. Conclusions: rTMS emerged as a potent short-term intervention for depression in TBI patients, while tDCS findings remained equivocal. The long-term efficacy of NIBS is yet to be established, warranting further studies. The low adverse event rate reaffirms NIBS’s potential safety. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop