Affiliation:
1. Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences Tehran Iran
2. Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundIn recent years, the exploration of innovative interventions for addressing problems of children and adolescents with specific learning disabilities (SLD) has garnered significant attention within the realm of neurocognitive research. Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) has emerged as a promising tool for enhancing cognitive skills in children, offering a non‐invasive and safe method that may particularly benefit those with learning difficulties. We aimed to appraise the extent and the quality of studies about impact of TES on cognitive skills including academic skills in children and adolescents with SLD.MethodsA literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles published between January 2000 and January 2024 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The study eligibility criteria were previously established according to the PICO model. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and Cochrane Collaboration tool (ROB2) were used to assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included studies, respectively.ResultsThe initial search yielded 1571 studies among which 30 studies were systematically reviewed. The total number of participants was 224 individuals (intervention: 114; control: 110). Findings showed significant improvements in reading skills such as text reading, high‐frequency word reading speed and efficiency and mathematical skills. Conversely, other cognitive skills such as working memory were not improved in people with dyslexia and dyscalculia.DiscussionTES interventions can positively affect cognitive skills in children and adolescents with SLD; However, due to the small number of studies, medium methodological quality and high risk of bias, caution should be taken when interpreting the results.