ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03452254Updated Sep 9, 2021

NIBS With mCIMT for Motor and Functional Upper Limb Recovery in Stroke Patients.

An interventional study of Active Bihemispheric Transcranial direct current Stimulation and Sham Bihemispheric Transcranial direct current Stimulation in Stroke, Upper Extremity Paresis and Electric Stimulation, sponsored by University of Chile. Completed at 2 sites in Chile. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-09-09.

Sponsored by University of Chile · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
70
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Where this study stands

Counted across the records on this site · 2026-11-12

Among 48 studies in Stroke with a site in Chile — 7 open to participants now, 7 under way, none of them phase 3. Stroke · Chile.

Enrollment
22nd of 35
70 · median 270
Started
2018
with 4 others
No phase
18 of 48
6 open now
Registered
28th of 48
by date
Lead sponsor
5 of 48
University of Chile

Among the 48 studies in Stroke with a site in Chile, this one is the 22nd largest by enrollment of the 35 interventional ones that give a count, is one of 5 that started in 2018, is one of 18 with no phase, and was the 28th registered.

Stroke

8,255 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,056 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 70 is above the median of 49 across 6,024 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.

Browse Stroke studies →

Open to participants now

7 of the 48 studies in Stroke with a site in Chile are open now, in 6 countries. Each count lists the studies.

All 7 open studies →

Who these studies take

Of the 1,415 Stroke studies recruiting now, 697 (49%) set no upper age limit and 280 (20%) stop at 75 or younger; 77 take children under 18; 196 take healthy volunteers.

This study: 18 Years and older · all sexes · no healthy volunteers.

The full table on the hub →
Was this useful?
Watch this landscapeDownload CSVNarrow it in search →With an account: a weekly mail of what changed among 48 studies in Stroke with a site in Chile, or all of them as a file.
02

Study summary

Stroke is one of the leading causes of serious long-term impairment. According to the estimates, 12,500 people suffer a new or recurrent ischemic stroke in Chile annually, which shows the magnitude of the problem. Motor impairment of the upper limb (UL) stands out as the principal sequel after a CVA (50% of the patients experience it), and the Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (CIMT) is the rehabilitation approach that shows more scientific evidence today. Even though patients reach certain recuperation levels through this approach, results are still insufficient since 50-80% of the patients continue having upper limb motor impairment after completing standard rehabilitation. Because of this, it is pertinent to conduct research to explore new rehabilitation strategies to reduce the impairment indexes and to provide information for decision making based on evidence.

Recent studies on functional neuroimaging propose that there is an abnormal balance in the motor cortex excitability after stroke - relative under-excitability in the affected hemisphere and over-excitability in the unaffected hemisphere (with the consequent inhibitory influence on ipsilesional regions) in stroke patient with moderate motor impairment. This imbalance in the hemispheres function would limit the possibilities of a greater recovery. Then, in order to reestablish brain balance, the investigators proposed that the early introduction of noninvasive techniques of brain stimulation, such as tDCS, to the motor rehabilitation training could promote improvement of upper limb function in patients with stroke. However, we lack studies that confirm the benefits of using these techniques, define the most appropriate protocols, and determine what patients and under which evolving stages would be the best candidates for treatment.

This study aims to "compare the effectiveness of seven days of bi-hemispheric tDCS, both active and sham, combined with modified CIMT (mCIMT) in the motor and functional recovery of the hemiparetic upper limb in hospitalized patients with subacute unihemispheric stroke at Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de Chile and Hospital San José". This comparison responds to the hypothesis that patients who receive bi-hemispheric and active tDCS combined with mCIMT (experimental group) get at least 30% more recovery of the paretic upper limb compared to the control group who receive sham bi-hemispheric tDCS plus mCIMT after a protocol of seven days treatment.

Read the detailed description

To test this hypothesis, the investigators propose to carry out a sham randomized multicenter double blind clinical trial. This trial considers seven continuous days of treatment when the participants with hemiparesis as a result of a stroke will be assigned to one of the treatment groups: bi-hemispheric tDCS combined with mCIMT or bi-hemispheric sham tDCS combined with mCIMT. Besides collecting demographic and clinical info from the subjects, the investigators will assess the patients using upper limb scales of functional motor recovery and an evaluation of their functional independence in basic activities of daily living (ADLs). STATA 14.0 software will be used for data analysis.

To date, no study has tested the efficacy of early bi-hemispheric stimulation in combination with mCIMT in subacute hospitalized stroke patients.

03

Conditions studied

  • Stroke
  • Upper Extremity Paresis
  • Electric Stimulation
  • Occupational Therapy

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Stroke
  • Upper Extremity Paresis
  • Neuro Rehabilitation
  • tDCS
  • mCIMT
  • Occupational Therapy
04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

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.

Inclusion criteria

  • First unihemispheric stroke event, ischemic or hemorrhagic, cortical or subcortical.
  • Hemiparesis with unilateral brachial compromise.
  • Evolution time ≥ 2 days. (equal or more than 2 days after onset)
  • Patient must be 18 years old or older.
  • Showing ability to perform some movement with the upper limb: at least 20º active extension of the wrist and 10º extension in fingers and/or 20° abduction angle in the shoulder.
  • signed by the patient.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous central injury with motor sequelae.
  • Severe aphasia with a score ≥ 2 in the language item of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale assessment.
  • Severe cognitive impairment with a score \< 15 points in the .
  • Shoulder subluxation and/or pain > 4 points in the Visual Numeric Scale for pain.
  • Non-controlled epilepsy or epileptic seizures in the last three months.
  • Metal implants or pacemaker.
  • Pregnancy.
  • Any other condition that, in the responsible physician's opinion, could prevent the correct development of the treatment.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

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.

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.

MMSE and MoCA

Short tests of memory and thinking, each scored out of 30. Lower scores suggest more difficulty; criteria give a range, either to include people with memory problems or to leave them out.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
70 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Experimental Group

    Active bi-hemispheric transcranial Direct Current Stimulation combined with modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy.

    Device: Active Bihemispheric Transcranial direct current Stimulation · Other: Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy

  • Sham comparator
    Control Group

    Sham bi-hemispheric transcranial Direct Current Stimulation combined with modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy.

    Device: Sham Bihemispheric Transcranial direct current Stimulation · Other: Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy

Interventions

  • DeviceActive Bihemispheric Transcranial direct current Stimulation

    The session will start with the application of the with a couple of surface sponge electrodes (25-35 cm2) on the scalp. The treatment modality will be as follows: Active tDCS: The anodic electrode will be put on affected M1. The cathodic electrode will be put on contralateral M1. We will apply a constant current of 2mA of intensity during 20 minutes while the patient performs the occupational therapy session.

    Also known as: Active tDCS

  • DeviceSham Bihemispheric Transcranial direct current Stimulation

    The session will start with the application of the with a couple of surface sponge electrodes (25-35 cm2) on the scalp. The treatment modality will be as follows: Sham tDCS: We will use the same place and parameters of stimulation applied for the active group, but the stimulator will deactivate after 30 seconds of stimulation. This will ensure that the patient will feel the initial tingling sensation at the beginning of the tDCS which is a requisite for blinding. The occupational therapy session will last one hour.

    Also known as: Sham tDCS

  • OtherModified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy

    Both groups will perform the mCIMT during a period of seven consecutive days. This protocol consists of two elements: 1. Restriction of the movements of the non-affected hand by wearing a mitt during six hours a day: we will use a mitt that limits the movement of the fingers but allows the free movements of the wrist, elbow, and shoulder. 2. Intensive and individualized training of the affected arm during 2 hours a day guided by an occupational therapist: the two hours training will be divided into two sessions of one hour each. Sessions will be organized in three blocks: preparation, activation, and function. In the third block, devoted to function, the patient has to choose one activity of daily living that he wants to improve.

    Also known as: mCIMT

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Upper Limb Motor Recovery.

    Percentage of the upper limb motor recovery after seven days treatment as assessed by Fugl Meyer Upper Extremity.

    Time frame: 7 days.

  2. Upper Limb Functional Recovery.

    Percentage of the upper limb functional recovery after seven days treatment as assessed by Wolf Motor Function Test.

    Time frame: 7 days.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Independence in basic activities of daily living.

    Obtained score of independence in basic activities of daily living after seven days treatment as Assessed by Functional Independence Measure (FIM).

    Time frame: 10 days and 3 months later

  2. Upper Limb Motor Recovery.

    Percentage maintenance of the upper limb motor recovery after seven days treatment as Assessed by Fugl Meyer Upper Extremity.

    Time frame: 10 days and 3 months later

  3. Upper Limb Functional Recovery.

    Percentage maintenance of the upper limb functional recovery after seven days treatment as assessed by Wolf Motor Function Test.

    Time frame: 10 days

  4. Quality of life post-stroke

    Score in quality of life with stroke impact scale

    Time frame: At the third month

  5. Brain activation patterns.

    Effect on brain activation patterns of six patients after going through a protocol of seven days treatment.

    Time frame: 7 days.

07

Study locations

2 sites
  • Hospital San José
    Santiago, Metropolitana 8380419, Chile
  • Hospital Clinico Universidad de Chile
    Santiago, Metropolitana 8380456, Chile
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Bjorklund A, Fecht A. The effectiveness of constraint-induced therapy as a stroke intervention: a meta-analysis. Occup Ther Health Care. 2006;20(2):31-49. doi: 10.1080/J003v20n02_03. PubMed 23926912 ↗
  • Konstan MW, Berger M. Current understanding of the inflammatory process in cystic fibrosis: onset and etiology. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1997 Aug;24(2):137-42; discussion 159-61. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0496(199708)24:23.0.co;2-3. PubMed 9292910 ↗
  • Bolognini N, Pascual-Leone A, Fregni F. Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009 Mar 17;6:8. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-6-8. PubMed 19292910 ↗
  • Butler AJ, Shuster M, O'Hara E, Hurley K, Middlebrooks D, Guilkey K. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation for upper limb motor recovery in stroke survivors. J Hand Ther. 2013 Apr-Jun;26(2):162-70; quiz 171. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2012.07.002. Epub 2012 Sep 8. PubMed 22964028 ↗
  • Cramer SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol. 2008 Mar;63(3):272-87. doi: 10.1002/ana.21393. PubMed 18383072 ↗
  • Grefkes C, Fink GR. Reorganization of cerebral networks after stroke: new insights from neuroimaging with connectivity approaches. Brain. 2011 May;134(Pt 5):1264-76. doi: 10.1093/brain/awr033. Epub 2011 Mar 16. PubMed 21414995 ↗
  • Kandel M, Beis JM, Le Chapelain L, Guesdon H, Paysant J. Non-invasive cerebral stimulation for the upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 Dec;55(9-10):657-80. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2012.09.001. Epub 2012 Sep 29. English, French. PubMed 23084320 ↗
  • Lavados PM, Sacks C, Prina L, Escobar A, Tossi C, Araya F, Feuerhake W, Galvez M, Salinas R, Alvarez G. Incidence, 30-day case-fatality rate, and prognosis of stroke in Iquique, Chile: a 2-year community-based prospective study (PISCIS project). Lancet. 2005 Jun 25-Jul 1;365(9478):2206-15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66779-7. PubMed 15978929 ↗
  • Page SJ, Levine P, Sisto S, Bond Q, Johnston MV. Stroke patients' and therapists' opinions of constraint-induced movement therapy. Clin Rehabil. 2002 Feb;16(1):55-60. doi: 10.1191/0269215502cr473oa. PubMed 11837526 ↗
  • Rehme AK, Grefkes C. Cerebral network disorders after stroke: evidence from imaging-based connectivity analyses of active and resting brain states in humans. J Physiol. 2013 Jan 1;591(1):17-31. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.243469. Epub 2012 Oct 22. PubMed 23090951 ↗
  • Shafi MM, Westover MB, Fox MD, Pascual-Leone A. Exploration and modulation of brain network interactions with noninvasive brain stimulation in combination with neuroimaging. Eur J Neurosci. 2012 Mar;35(6):805-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08035.x. PubMed 22429242 ↗
  • Szaflarski JP, Page SJ, Kissela BM, Lee JH, Levine P, Strakowski SM. Cortical reorganization following modified constraint-induced movement therapy: a study of 4 patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Aug;87(8):1052-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.04.018. PubMed 16876549 ↗
  • Taub E, Uswatte G, Elbert T. New treatments in neurorehabilitation founded on basic research. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Mar;3(3):228-36. doi: 10.1038/nrn754. PubMed 11994754 ↗
  • Wagner T, Valero-Cabre A, Pascual-Leone A. Noninvasive human brain stimulation. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2007;9:527-65. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.9.061206.133100. PubMed 17444810 ↗
  • Singh P, Pradhan B. Study to assess the effectiveness of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke subjects: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2013 Apr;16(2):180-4. doi: 10.4103/0972-2327.112461. PubMed 23956560 ↗
  • Wu CY, Chen CL, Tang SF, Lin KC, Huang YY. Kinematic and clinical analyses of upper-extremity movements after constraint-induced movement therapy in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Aug;88(8):964-70. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.05.012. PubMed 17678656 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided — Still not decided.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Jun 2018 to primary completion in Mar 2021, 33 months.

Of 3,108 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Stroke, half reached primary completion within 23 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 46. This study's 33 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 3,252 studies reached it within 23 months; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 46.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Feb 26, 2018
First posted
Mar 2, 2018
StartActual
Jun 4, 2018
Primary completionActual
Mar 30, 2021
CompletionActual
Jun 30, 2021
Last update
Sep 9, 2021
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 9, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03452254
Collaborators
Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, Hospital San José, Universidad Central de Chile, Sociedad Chilena de Medicina Física y Rehabilitación
Responsible party
Maricel Garrido Montenegro (Principal Investigator, University of Chile) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 2, 2018
Start date
Jun 4, 2018
Primary completion
Mar 30, 2021
Completion
Jun 30, 2021
Last update
Sep 9, 2021

Study contacts

Maricel A Garrido
principal investigator · University of Chile

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Start the discussion