4.4 Article

not sign Transcranial direct current stimulation improves sleep quality in patients with insomnia after traumatic brain injury

Journal

BRAIN INJURY
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 63-73

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02699052.2022.2145363

Keywords

Age; gender; Insomnia; transcranial direct current stimulation; traumatic brain injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The real tDCS group showed lower levels of insomnia severity and better sleep quality compared to the sham group. This effect was more pronounced in younger participants and men, indicating the potential for age and gender-specific tDCS protocols to optimize therapeutic outcomes.
IntroductionInsomnia is a serious problem after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and partially improves via sleeping pills. We investigated the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with a focus on the role of age and gender.Materials and MethodsIn a randomized double-blind clinical trial, 60 eligible TBI-induced insomnia patients were assigned to real and sham tDCS groups and were treated for three weeks. Sham but not real tDCS took sleeping pills for the first three weeks of the study and then used the placebo until the end of the study. The placebo was used by the real-tDCS group throughout the study. Sleep quality and insomnia severity were respectively evaluated by Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) at three time points.ResultsReal tDCS group reported lower mean ISI and PSQI scores at 3 weeks post treatment onset and maintained this decline for six weeks post treatment onset (P < 0.001). In younger participants and those identified as men, the treatment-induced attenuation of the mean PSQI score was reported higher and more lasting in real than sham tDCS groups.ConclusionGender and age-specific tDCS protocols may be warranted to optimize the therapeutic effect of tDCS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available