音乐疗法结合经颅直流电刺激对语言发育迟缓儿童疗效分析

目的 分析探讨音乐疗法结合经颅直流电刺激对语言发育迟缓儿童的临床疗效。方法 选取某三级甲等医院2020年10月至2022年3月接收治疗的语言发育迟缓患儿120例作为观察对象,通过数字随机抽选的方法分成两个组（观察组：音乐疗法结合经颅直流电刺激治疗;对照组：常规康复治疗）,将两组患者治疗前后的口部运动功能情况、语言相比较、生活质量与治疗效果进行比较。结果 两组患者治疗前的口部运动功能比较无明显差异（P> 0.05）,治疗后观察组患者的口部运动功能高于对照组,并且时间越久,口部运动功能评分升高程度越明显,差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）;两组患者治疗前的语言相比较无明显差异（P> 0.05）,治疗后观察组患者的语言发育相评分高于对照组,并且时间越久,语言发育相评分升高程度越明显,差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）;两组患者治疗前的生活质量比较无明显差异（P> 0.05）,治疗后,观察组患者的生活质量高于对照组（P <0.05）。观察组与对照组患者的总有效比例分别为96.67%与76.67%,差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。结论 音乐疗法结合经...     

经颅直流电刺激对发育迟缓的疗效观察

目的 探究经颅直流电刺激对发育迟缓的疗效。方法 于2019.5-2022.4以随机抽样法为分组依据,将本院抽取的140例1岁到3岁之间发育迟缓患儿分为经颅直流电+常规康复训练组(经颅直流电+常规康复训练)与常规康复训练组(康复训练)各70例,均期间在本院接受治疗,对干预效果进行分析比较。结果 在治疗总有效率上,与常规康复训练组相82.86%相比,经颅直流电+常规康复训练组95.71%显著较高(P<0.05),治疗前研究对象各项发育评分对比无显著差异(P>0.05),治疗后经颅直流电+常规康复训练组Peabooly评分均高于常规康复训练组(P<0.05)。结论 经颅直流电刺激可提升患儿运动发育,疗效确切,值得应用。     

重复经颅磁刺激联合言语训练治疗儿童语言发育迟缓的临床研究

目的观察重复经颅磁刺激联合言语训练治疗儿童语言发育迟缓的临床疗效。方法 90例儿童语言发育迟缓患儿随机分为言语训练组(给予常规言语训练)、重复经颅磁刺激组(给予重复经颅磁刺激治疗仪治疗)及联合治疗组(给予言语训练+重复经颅磁刺激),各30例。分别于治疗开始前,治疗1、2、3个月采用汉语儿童语言发育迟缓评定法(S-S)及儿童神经心理发育测试进行疗效评估。结果治疗3个月后,言语训练组、重复经颅磁刺激组和联合治疗组的总有效率分别为86.7%、80.0%和96.7%,联合治疗组优于其他两组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗后三组均能有效提高患儿的社会适应能及语言能,组间及组内比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);且与治疗时间呈正相关(P<0.05)。结论重复经颅磁刺激联合言语训练可以有效提高患儿语言发育及智能发育水平,且治疗时间越长,疗效越好。     

重复经颅磁刺激联合语言认知训练在语言发育迟缓儿童康复中的应用

语言不仅是人们交流思想、表达情感的工具,也是个体思维的外在表现.言语能力是指一个人运用语言与他人进行交流的能力.当一个人由于某种原因出现语言信号接收、理解、中枢整合或输出障碍时,就称为语言障碍[1].     

Gesell在基层医院语言发育迟缓儿童中的应用

目的探讨Gesell在基层医院语言发育迟缓儿童中应用效果。方法随机选取我院2007年1月~2012年12月在儿科门诊就诊的2~3岁语言发育迟缓儿童,共计52例。采用Gesell婴幼儿发育量表,对每个儿童进行发育评估。按运动能、应物能、语言能、应人能4个能区,将研究对象的评估结果统计对比。结果 52例儿童的Gesell发育评估结果:按运动能、应物能、语言能、应人能4个能区,将研究对象的评估结果统计。3岁以下语言发育迟缓儿童Gesell检查,动作和应物能区平均DQ尚在正常范围内,而语言及应人能区平均DQ落后于正常;语言能发育落后(12.1±4.8)月,发育异常52例(100.00%)。结论 Gesell在基层医院语言发育迟缓儿童中应用效果显著,Gesell中应物能是小儿对外界刺激的分析和综合的能力,是预示智慧潜力的主要基础。可通过日常适应其发育水平的语言训练并定期随访即可,对于应物DQ低于正常的患儿,需至专门的康复治疗科室治疗。     

多感官刺激联合重复经颅磁刺激在儿童语言发育迟缓/障碍中的应用研究

目的研究多感官刺激联合重复经颅磁刺激在儿童语言发育迟缓/障碍中的治疗效果。方法选取2019年4月至2022年6月来聊城市人民医院治疗的91例语言发育迟缓/障碍患儿作为研究对象, 依据信封法分为对照组和观察组。对照组45例中男28例, 女17例, 年龄(2.89±0.79)岁, 采用重复经颅磁刺激治疗;观察组46例中男27例, 女19例, 年龄(2.85±0.82)岁, 在对照组基础上采用多感官刺激治疗。比较两组患儿治疗效果、口部运动评分、小儿神经心理发育量表(Gesell)评分、语言行为评分以及日常生活能力评分。采用独立样本t检验、配对t检验、χ2检验。结果观察组治疗总有效率为95.65%(44/46), 对照组治疗总有效率为80.00%(36/45), 差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.244, P=0.022)。干预后, 两组口部运动的唇运动、下颚运动、舌运动评分均高于同组干预前(均P<0.05), 观察组分别为(17.62±3.15)分、(13.95±3.24)分、(21.66±4.34)分, 对照组分别为(15.56±3.03)分、(12.07±3.12)分、(19.30±3....     

集体语言训练干预在语言发育迟缓患儿治疗中的应用价值分析

目的:探讨集体语言训练干预在语言发育迟缓患儿治疗中的应用价值.方法:选取2019年1月-2019年12月期间我院儿童康复科收治的90例语言发育迟缓患儿作为研究对象,随机将其分成对照组(n=45)和观察组(n=45),对照组患儿给予常规语言康复训练,观察组患儿给予集体语言训练干预,两组患儿均给予连续治疗3个月,比较两组患...     

儿童语言发育迟缓训练的研究

目的评价开展语言发育迟缓患儿的语言训练的疗效和意义,探索开展语言发育迟缓训练的模式,并建立一个科学、可行的适合训练的治疗指南和程序,使之成为常规,以期推动语言发育迟缓患儿的防治训练工作开展。方法60例语言发育迟缓患儿,按年龄分三组采用符号形式与指示内容关系方法训练辅以听觉统合、感觉统合、针灸及家庭指导3个月。结果三组患儿训练后均能取得显著疗效,总有效率达86．66％,〈4岁有效率75．00％,2岁≤年龄〈3岁与4岁≤年龄≤6岁组疗效比较差异有统计学意义。结论在基层医院开展语言训练对语言发育迟缓患儿的疗效明显,值得推广应用。     

经颅直流电刺激治疗脑梗死后痴呆的效果分析

目的 探讨经颅直流电刺激治疗脑梗死后痴呆的效果.方法 90例因脑梗死后痴呆进行康复治疗患者随机分为对照组40例,治疗组50例.对照组采用一般康复治疗,治疗组在一般治疗基础上加用经颅直流电刺激.治疗后评价认知能力并检测血浆同型半胱氨酸.结果 治疗组治疗后认知能力与治疗前及对照组差异均有统计学意义(均P＜0.05);两组治疗后血浆同型半胱氨酸均明显降低,并且治疗组优于对照组(P＜0.05).结论 经颅直流电刺激治疗脑梗死后痴呆效果良好.     

经颅直流电刺激治疗CO中毒后认知功能障碍观察

探讨经颅直流电刺激（transcranial direct current stimulation , tDCS）治疗急性CO中毒患者认知功能障碍的疗效。选取15例CO中毒后认知功能障碍患者,对患者均进行常规康复治疗和tDCS治疗,治疗前后采用简易精神状态评价（minimum mental state examination, MMSE）量表、上肢反应时间及事件相关电位P300综合评估患者认知功能情况。与治疗前相比,常规康复治疗和tDCS治疗后患者MMSE评分明显升高,上肢反应时间明显缩短且正确率显著升高,P300检测中P3波潜伏期明显缩短,波幅显著升高,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05或P＜0.01）。tDCS有助于提高急性CO中毒患者认知功能。     

A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive method of brain stimulation that has been intensively investigated in clinical and cognitive neuroscience. Although the general impression is that tDCS is a safe technique with mild and transient adverse effects (AEs), human data on safety and tolerability are largely provided from single-session studies in healthy volunteers. In addition the frequency of AEs and its relationship with clinical variables is unknown. With the aim of assessing tDCS safety in different conditions and study designs, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS clinical trials. We assessed Medline and other databases and reference lists from retrieved articles, searching for articles from 1998 (first trial with contemporary tDCS parameters) to August 2010. Animal studies, review articles and studies assessing other neuromodulatory techniques were excluded. According to our eligibility criteria, 209 studies (from 172 articles) were identified. One hundred and seventeen studies (56%) mentioned AEs in the report. Of these studies, 74 (63%) reported at least one AE and only eight studies quantified AEs systematically. In the subsample reporting AEs, the most common were, for active vs. sham tDCS group, itching (39.3% vs. 32.9%, p>0.05), tingling (22.2% vs. 18.3%, p>0.05), headache (14.8% vs. 16.2%, p>0.05), burning sensation (8.7% vs. 10%, p>0.05) and discomfort (10.4% vs. 13.4%, p>0.05). Meta-analytical techniques could be applied in only eight studies for itching, but no definite results could be obtained due to between-study heterogeneity and low number of studies. Our results suggested that some AEs such as itching and tingling were more frequent in the tDCS active group, although this was not statistically significant. Although results suggest that tDCS is associated with mild AEs only, we identified a selective reporting bias for reporting, assessing and publishing AEs of tDCS that hinders further conclusions. Based on our findings, we propose a revised adverse effects questionnaire to be applied in tDCS studies in order to improve systematic reporting of tDCS-related AEs.     

Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation as an add-on treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized,sham-controlled trial

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a frequent, disabling disorder with high rates of treatment resistance. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a safe, tolerable noninvasive neuromodulation therapy with scarce evidence for OCD. This double-blind, randomized, and sham-controlled study investigates the efficacy of tDCS as add-on treatment for treatment-resistant OCD (failure to respond to at least one previous pharmacological treatment). On 20 consecutive weekdays (4 weeks), 43 patients with treatment-resistant OCD underwent 30 min active or sham tDCS sessions, followed by a 8 week follow-up. The cathode was positioned over the supplementary motor area (SMA) and the anode over the left deltoid. The primary outcome was the change in baseline Y-BOCS score at week 12. Secondary outcomes were changes in mood and anxiety and the occurrence of adverse events. Response was evaluated considering percent decrease of baseline Y-BOCS scores and the Improvement subscale of the Clinical Global Impression (CGI-I) between baseline and week 12. Patients that received active tDCS achieved a significant reduction of OCD symptoms than sham, with mean (SD) Y-BOCS score changes of 6.68 (5.83) and 2.84 (6.3) points, respectively (Cohen’s d: 0.62 (0.06–1.18), p = 0.03). We found no between-group differences in responders (four patients in the active tDCS and one in the sham group). Active tDCS of the SMA was not superior to sham in reducing symptoms of depression or anxiety. Patients in both groups reported mild adverse events. Our results suggest that cathodal tDCS over the SMA is an effective add-on strategy in treatment-resistant OCD.Subject terms: Anxiety, Drug development     

Noninvasive techniques for probing neurocircuitry and treating illness: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

Although the preceding chapters discuss much of the new knowledge of neurocircuitry of neuropsychiatric diseases, and an invasive approach to treatment, this chapter describes and reviews the noninvasive methods of testing circuit-based theories and treating neuropsychiatric diseases that do not involve implanting electrodes into the brain or on its surface. These techniques are transcranial magnetic stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, and transcranial direct current stimulation. Two of these approaches have FDA approval as therapies.     

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on symptoms of nicotine dependence: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on symptoms of nicotine dependence in treatment-seeking smokers. Twelve studies qualified for this meta-analysis, and we used 15 total comparisons from the included studies for the data synthesis. Primary outcome measures were changes in (a) cue-provoked craving and (b) smoking intake (i.e., the number of cigarettes smoked) between active tDCS stimulation and sham control groups. Random-effects model meta-analyses revealed significant positive effects of tDCS on seven cue-provoked craving comparisons (effect size = 0.422; P = .004) and eight smoking intake comparisons (effect size = 0.557; P = .004). Moderator variable analyses indicated that applying anodal-tDCS on the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) revealed significant positive effects on the cue-provoked craving with minimal heterogeneity. Further, applying cathodal-tDCS on DLPFC regions showed more positive effects on both cue-provoked craving and smoking intake than cathodal-tDCS on other brain regions. These findings suggested that tDCS modulating DLPFC activity can be an effective option for decreasing individual's smoking dependence symptoms.     

Beneficial effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on spatial working memory in patients with schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a severe and often detrimental psychiatric disorder. The individual patients’ level of functioning is essentially determined by cognitive, particularly working memory (WM), deficits that are critically linked to dysfunctional activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can transiently modulate activity of the dlPFC and remote areas and has been shown to improve WM functions. It may therefore provide a new, targeted treatment option.For this aim, the present study investigated the effect of anodal tDCS of different intensities on spatial WM in patients with schizophrenia. In two experiments, 32 patients performed a spatial n-back task with increasing WM load (1-, 2-, and 3-back) at baseline and in two sessions with anodal or sham tDCS (EXP I [n?=?16]: 1?mA; EXP II [n?=?16]: 2?mA) to the right dlPFC (cathode: left m. deltoideus). With 1?mA anodal tDCS, no effect on WM performance could be detected. However, 2?mA anodal tDCS increased accuracy (measured by d’) of the task with the highest WM load (3-back). This effect was larger in patients with a lower level of general neurocognitive functioning.These results demonstrate a beneficial effect of 2?mA anodal tDCS on deficient WM accuracy in patients with schizophrenia particularly under challenging conditions and in subjects with higher cognitive impairments. This data will inform future clinical trials on tDCS-enhanced cognitive training to improve treatment of schizophrenia.     

BDNF plasma levels after antidepressant treatment with sertraline and transcranial direct current stimulation: Results from a factorial,randomized, sham-controlled trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation intervention that modifies cortical excitability according to the stimulation parameters. Preclinical and clinical studies in healthy volunteers suggest that tDCS induces neuroplastic alterations of cortical excitability, which might explain its clinical effects in major depressive disorder (MDD). We therefore examined whether tDCS, as compared to the antidepressant sertraline, increases plasma brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels, a neurotrophin associated with neuroplasticity. Patients (n=73) with major depressive disorder were randomized to active/sham tDCS and sertraline/placebo (four groups) in this 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We measured BDNF plasma levels at baseline and endpoint, observing no significant changes of BDNF levels after treatment. In addition, no significant changes were observed in responders and non-responders as well as no relationships between BDNF levels and clinical and psychopathological variables related to depression. Thus, in one of the few placebo-controlled trials evaluating BDNF changes over an antidepressant treatment course, we did not observe BDNF increase regardless of clinical improvement in depressed patients. Regarding tDCS, BDNF plasma levels might not be a good candidate biomarker to evaluate depression improvement or be a predictor of response in patients treated with tDCS, as our results showed that BDNF increase was not necessary to induce clinical response. Finally, our findings do not support a relationship between BDNF and improvement of depression.