Clinical Comparison between HD-tDCS and tDCS for Improving Upper Limb Motor Function: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial

Table 1

Clinical data and preliminary evaluation of three patient groups.

		Mean (SD) or median (IQR)
	HD-tDCS; (25%, 75%)	a-tDCS; (25%, 75%)	Sham; (25%, 75%)	r
N	21	22	21	—
Age (years)	55.14 ± 14.76	57.73 ± 12.14	57.24 ± 13.75	0.805^b
Sex, male/female	8/13	14/8	15/6	0.072^a
Hemisphere, left/right	6/15	13/9	7/14	0.089^a
Type, ischemic/hemorrhage	11/10	16/6	11/10	0.29^a
Stroke interval (weeks)	1.25 (1, 2.25)	1.25 (1, 2)	2 (1, 2.25)	0.599^c
Brunnstrom stage
Hand	2 (1.5, 3)	2.5 (1, 4)	2 (1, 3)	0.603^c
Upper limb	2 (1, 3)	2 (1, 3.25)	2 (1, 3)	0.943^c
ARAT	0 (0, 6.5)	0 (0, 18.75)	0 (0, 11)	0.8^c
UEFM	16 (11.5, 30.5)	15.5 (7, 34.25)	8 (6, 25)	0.115^c
MAS	20 (12.5, 26.5)	15 (13, 27.5)	12 (5, 21)	0.179^c
MBI	40.71 ± 20.27	42.5 ± 27.11	33.1 ± 23.64	0.4^b

ARAT, action research arm test; UEFM, Fugl–Meyer score for the upper extremity; MAS, motor function assessment scale; MBI, modified Barthel index; SD, standard deviation; HD-tDCS, high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation; and a-tDCS, anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. ^aChi-square test. ^bOne-way ANOVA; . ^cKruskal–Wallis test; .