The Influence of Skin Redness on Blinding in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Studies: A Crossover Trial

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
29
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
WILEY
Citação
NEUROMODULATION, v.20, n.3, p.248-255, 2017
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
ObjectiveTo evaluate whether and to which extent skin redness (erythema) affects investigator blinding in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) trials. Material and MethodsTwenty-six volunteers received sham and active tDCS, which was applied with saline-soaked sponges of different thicknesses. High-resolution skin images, taken before and 5, 15, and 30 min after stimulation, were randomized and presented to experienced raters who evaluated erythema intensity and judged on the likelihood of stimulation condition (sham vs. active). In addition, semi-automated image processing generated probability heatmaps and surface area coverage of erythema. Adverse events were also collected. ResultsErythema was present, but less intense in sham compared to active groups. Erythema intensity was inversely and directly associated to correct sham and active stimulation group allocation, respectively. Our image analyses found that erythema also occurs after sham and its distribution is homogenous below electrodes. Tingling frequency was higher using thin compared to thick sponges, whereas erythema was more intense under thick sponges. ConclusionsOptimal investigator blinding is achieved when erythema after tDCS is mild. Erythema distribution under the electrode is patchy, occurs after sham tDCS and varies according to sponge thickness. We discuss methods to address skin erythema-related tDCS unblinding.
Palavras-chave
Adverse effects, blinding, computer modeling, erythema, randomized-controlled trials, skin redness, transcranial direct current stimulation
Referências
  1. Ambrus GG, 2012, BRAIN STIMUL, V5, P499, DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2011.12.001
  2. Ambrus GG, 2011, CLIN NEUROPHYSIOL, V122, P803, DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.08.023
  3. Brunoni AR, 2012, BRAIN STIMUL, V5, P175, DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2011.03.002
  4. Brunoni AR, 2011, INT J NEUROPSYCHOPH, V14, P1133, DOI 10.1017/S1461145710001690
  5. Dundas JE, 2007, CLIN NEUROPHYSIOL, V118, P1166, DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.01.010
  6. Ferrell WR, 2004, FUND CLIN PHARMACOL, V18, P195, DOI 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00218.x
  7. FITZPATRICK TB, 1988, ARCH DERMATOL, V124, P869, DOI 10.1001/archderm.124.6.869
  8. Gandiga PC, 2006, CLIN NEUROPHYSIOL, V117, P845, DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.003
  9. Guarienti F, 2015, NEUROMODULATION, V18, P261, DOI 10.1111/ner.12230
  10. Guleyupoglu Berkan, 2014, Front Neuroeng, V7, P28, DOI 10.3389/fneng.2014.00028
  11. Kessler SK, 2012, BRAIN STIMUL, V5, P155, DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2011.02.007
  12. Khadka N, 2015, BRAIN STIMUL, V8, P150, DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.004
  13. Miranda PC, 2006, CLIN NEUROPHYSIOL, V117, P1623, DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.04.009
  14. O'Connell NE, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0047514
  15. Palm U, 2013, BRAIN STIMUL, V6, P690, DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2013.01.005
  16. Poreisz C, 2007, BRAIN RES BULL, V72, P208, DOI 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.01.004
  17. Portney LG, 2008, FDN CLIN RES APPL PR
  18. Saturnino GB, 2015, NEUROIMAGE, V120, P25, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.067
  19. Tortella Gabriel, 2015, World J Psychiatry, V5, P88, DOI 10.5498/wjp.v5.i1.88
  20. Turi Z, 2014, BRAIN STIMUL, V7, P460, DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2014.01.059
  21. Wagner T, 2007, NEUROIMAGE, V35, P1113, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.027
  22. Woods AJ, 2016, CLIN NEUROPHYSIOL, V127, P1031, DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.012