Sham stimulation is used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy of active stimulation and placebo effects. It should mimic the characteristics of active stimulation to achieve blinding integrity. The present study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to identify the effects of sham transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) – including anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS, c-tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) – on corticospinal excitability (CSE), compared to baseline in healthy individuals. Electronic databases – PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Science Direct and MEDLINE (Ovid) – were searched for RCTs of tES from 1990 to March 2017. Thirty RCTs were identified. Using a random-effects model, meta-analysis of a-tDCS, c-tDCS, tACS, tRNS and tPCS studies showed statistically non-significant pre-post effects of sham interventions on CSE. This review found evidence for statically non-significant effects of sham tES on CSE.

Several methods can be used to determine the resting motor threshold (RMT) and by that recording transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs). However, no research has compared the test retest reliability of these methods. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine intra‐ and inter‐session reliability of Rossini–Rothwell (R–R) and parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) methods on TMS‐induced MEPs and comparison of these two methods on RMT. Twelve healthy individuals participated in this study three times (T1, T2 and T3) over two days. TMS was applied using both R–R and PEST to estimate RMT and average of 25 MEPs were acquired at each of the three time points. The intra‐class correlation coefficient indicated high intra‐session reliability in the MEP amplitudes for both methods (0.79 and 0.88, R–R and PEST respectively). The RMT and MEP amplitudes had higher inter‐session reliability in both methods (0.99 and 0.998, R–R and PEST respectively; 0.84 and 0.76, R–R and PEST respectively). There was no significant difference between methods for RMT at both T1 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.7% ± 7.7% vs. 33.8% ± 7.6%, p = 0.75) and T3 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.5% ± 7.3% vs. 33.7% ± 7.3%, p = 0.19). There was a significant positive correlation between the methods' estimates of RMT, with PEST requiring significantly fewer stimuli. This study shows that the R–R and PEST methods have high intra‐and inter‐session reliability and the same precision, with PEST having the advantage over R–R in speed of estimation of RMT.

To synthesise the literature on the efficacy of primary motor cortex anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (M1-a-tDCS), as a standalone or priming technique, for pain reduction in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and CENTRAL according to PRISMA statement. Fourteen studies involving 740 people with KOA were included. In the meta-analysis, six studies compared a-tDCS alone with sham stimulation, and five studies compared a-tDCS combined with other methods with sham stimulation. We found positive effect of a-tDCS alone on pain in KOA (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.52; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.25; P=0.001; I2 = 69%). Further, a-tDCS with other treatments showed positive effect (SMD -1.23; 95% CI, -1.59 to -0.88; P<0.001; I2 = 48%) on pain in people with KOA. This evidence showed low certainty due to a high risk of bias and imprecision. A-tDCS could be considered as standalone and an adjunct treatment for pain reduction in people with KOA. Future randomised studies should address quality issues, including small sample size, to enhance the overall certainty of the findings. A-tDCS can be used as a standalone and adjunct treatment for KOA. PROSPERO number CRD42021255114.

Medicinal cannabis might have a role in supporting the mental health of people with cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis, compared with any control, as an intervention for depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms in people living with cancer. A secondary aim was to examine the effect of low versus high Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) dose on these outcomes. Five databases were systematically searched, and complemented with a snowball search from inception to May 2023, for any type of interventional study that included humans of any age with any cancer type. Primary outcomes were incidence and severity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Secondary outcomes were mood, cognition, quality of life, appetite, nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events. Data were pooled using Review Manager. Evidence was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias tools. Confidence in the estimated effect of pooled outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Fifteen studies (n = 11 randomized trials, n = 4 non-randomized trials) of 18 interventions (N = 1898 total participants; 100 % ≥18 years of age) were included. Ten studies examined THC (70 % synthetic), two synthetic cannabidiol with or without THC, and six whole-plant extracts. No clinically significant effects of medicinal cannabis were found on primary outcomes. The likelihood of anxiety events increased with higher-dose synthetic THC compared with a lower dose (OR: 2.0; 95 % CI: 1.4, 2.9; p < 0.001; Confidence: very low). Medicinal cannabis (THC, cannabidiol, and whole-plant extract) increased the likelihood of improved appetite (OR: 12.3; 95 % CI: 3.5, 45.5; p < 0.001; n = 3 interventions; Confidence: moderate) and reduced severity of appetite loss (SMD: -0.4; 95 % CI: -0.8, -0.1; p = 0.009; Confidence: very low). There was very low confidence that higher doses of synthetic THC increased the likelihood of any adverse event (OR: 0.5; 95 % CI: 0.3, 0.7; p < 0.001). Medicinal cannabis had no effect on emotional functioning, mood changes, confusion, disorientation, quality of life, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Confidence in findings was limited by some studies having high or unclear risk of bias and imprecise pooled estimates. There was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic intervention for depression, anxiety, or stress in people with active cancer. Further research should explore whether medicinal cannabis might improve and maintain appetite and if high-dose synthetic THC might increase the incidence of side-effects, including anxiety. To inform clinical practice, well-powered and rigorously designed trials are warranted that evaluate the effects of medicinal cannabis prescribed to target anxiety, depression, and stress.

To assess physiotherapists’ perceptions and barriers to using telerehabilitation via video and telephone for exercise management for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in Sri Lanka.Currently regi...