An interventional study of DC-stimulator (Neuroconn, Germany) in Stroke, sponsored by Adrian Guggisberg. Terminated at 2 sites in Switzerland. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-06-11.
Sponsored by Adrian Guggisberg · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Neurological deficits and motor disorders are extremely common after stroke. Physical therapies can improve the autonomy of these patients, but despite an intensive stationary neurorehabilitation, severe deficits often persist. Complementary therapies that could improve recovery would therefore be very welcome.
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induces, in a non-invasive way, a transient inhibitory or excitatory neuromodulation of certain cerebral regions. An increasing number of studies show that this modulation of brain activity can improve motor functions in patients with brain lesions and increase the effect of physical therapies. However, the "optimum" configuration of tDCS and the induced effects remain to be characterized and investigated.
The investigators therefore propose to carry out a study including a pilot phase in order to determine the most efficient tDCS setup. The optimum setup of of the pilot phase will be compared to a placebo condition in a multicentric main study.
8,255 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,056 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 36 is below the median of 49 across 6,024 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.
Browse Stroke studies →Adrian Guggisberg is the lead sponsor of 5 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Contraindication
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
The anode is placed over the primary motor cortex of the stroke affected hemisphere, the cathode over the contralesional supraorbital front of the patient.
Device: DC-stimulator (Neuroconn, Germany)
A single HD anode is placed over the primary motor cortex of the stroke affected hemisphere, 4 HD cathodes are placed over the affected hemisphere around the anode.
Device: DC-stimulator (Neuroconn, Germany)
The anode is placed over the primary motor cortex of the stroke affected hemisphere, the cathode over the primary motor cortex of the contralesional hemisphere.
Device: DC-stimulator (Neuroconn, Germany)
The electrodes are placed as in one of the active arms, but only a ramp up current is applied during 30 seconds and then switched off. This induces similar sensations for the patients, but no change in excitability.
Device: DC-stimulator (Neuroconn, Germany)
A current of 2 mA will be applied for 20 minutes, 3 times per week during 2 weeks, except for the sham tDCS arm.
Change in upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score, after intervention
Scale range 0-66 points, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before the intervention and the week after intervention
Change in EEG functional connectivity, after intervention
EEG functional connectivity between ipsilesional motor cortex and the rest of the brain, as computed from high-density EEG recordings. Continuous measure. Higher values indicate better outcome.
Time frame: Difference between the week before the intervention and the week after intervention
Change in amplitude of motor evoked potentials, after intervention
Motor evoked potentials are obtained with single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. Continuous measure expressed in microvolts, more microvolts indicate better outcome.
Time frame: Difference between the week before the intervention and the week after intervention
Change in upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score, follow up 1
Scale range 0-66 points, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 4 weeks after intervention
Change in upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score, follow up 2
Scale range 0-66 points, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 12 weeks after stroke onset
Change in Jamar dynamometer, after intervention
Continous measure expressed in kilograms. Higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before the intervention and the week after intervention
Change in Jamar dynamometer, follow up 1
Continous measure expressed in kilograms. Higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 4 weeks after intervention
Change in Jamar dynamometer, follow up 2
Continous measure expressed in kilograms. Higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 12 weeks after stroke onset
Change in Nine-Hole-Peg test, after intervention
Expressed in pegs/second. Higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists.
Time frame: Difference between the week before the intervention and the week after intervention
Change in Nine-Hole-Peg test, follow up 1
Expressed in pegs/second. Higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists.
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 4 weeks after intervention
Change in Nine-Hole-Peg test, follow up 2
Expressed in pegs/second. Higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists.
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 12 weeks after stroke onset
Change in action research arm test (ARAT) score, after intervention
Scale range 0-57 points, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before the intervention and the week after intervention
Change in action research arm test (ARAT) score, follow up 1
Scale range 0-57 points, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 4 weeks after intervention
Change in action research arm test (ARAT) score, follow up 2
Scale range 0-57 points, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by qualified physical or occupational therapists
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 12 weeks after stroke onset
Change in Functional Independence Measure (FIM) score, after intervention
Range 18-126, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by rehabilitation nurses.
Time frame: Difference between the week before the intervention and the week after intervention
Change in Functional Independence Measure (FIM) score, follow up 1
Range 18-126, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by rehabilitation nurses.
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 4 weeks after intervention
Change in Functional Independence Measure (FIM) score, follow up 2
Range 18-126, higher values indicate better outcome. Assessed by rehabilitation nurses.
Time frame: Difference between the week before intervention and 12 weeks after stroke onset
Ran from Nov 2017 to primary completion in Apr 2024, 77 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is terminated, as verified in Jun 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Adrian Guggisberg