Upper limb dysfunction after stroke is a major contributor to disability. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been widely studied as an adjunct to motor rehabilitation but large randomized trials have not consistently shown benefit. The NETS trial was a multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled study designed to evaluate adjunctive anodal tDCS over the ipsilesional primary motor cortex during standardized rehabilitation in subacute ischemic stroke patients. This post-hoc exploratory analysis specifically investigated whether sex moderates the response to tDCS by modelling outcomes across the full 90-day follow-up rather than only at end of intervention.
NETS randomized 119 patients with subacute ischemic stroke to either active anodal tDCS (1 mA) applied over the ipsilesional primary motor cortex or to sham stimulation. All participants received standardized rehabilitation alongside the stimulation. The trial protocol and ethical approvals were documented: NETS was approved by the responsible ethics committee (Ethik-Kommission der Ärztekammer Hamburg) and registered (NCT00909714). The authors state that anonymized trial data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The analysis evaluated outcomes spanning the three International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains:
To examine sex as a moderator, longitudinal mixed-effects models with autoregressive correlation structures were fitted to all assessment time points across 90 days. Treatment-by-sex interactions were the primary focus. Sensitivity analyses included continuous-time models and three-way sex-by-treatment-by-time interactions. Analyses were performed on both the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations.
The post-hoc analysis identified treatment-by-sex interactions for the UEFMA and BBT, indicating differential effects of active versus sham stimulation by sex. Specifically, female participants who received active tDCS improved more than female participants who received sham stimulation. The authors report estimated marginal mean differences that they describe as clinically relevant: 6.0 points on the UEFMA and 8.4 points on the BBT favoring active stimulation in females.
No relevant treatment effect was observed in male participants for either UEFMA or BBT. For the SIS participation domain, no treatment-by-sex interaction was detected.
Results were reported as consistent across both ITT and PP analyses. Sensitivity analyses that used continuous-time models and tested three-way sex-by-treatment-by-time interactions supported the primary interaction findings for the impairment and activity measures. The authors present these results as robust within the exploratory post-hoc framework.
Within the scope of this exploratory analysis, the data provide preliminary evidence that sex may moderate the response to anodal tDCS in post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation. The observed improvements in females spanned both impairment (UEFMA) and activity (BBT) domains of the ICF and reached effect sizes the authors characterize as clinically relevant. By contrast, males did not show a relevant benefit from active stimulation in these measures in this cohort.
The authors note that converging signals from independent trials support the possibility of sex-specific responsiveness and propose that future trials may need sex-stratified designs to detect tDCS efficacy reliably in stroke rehabilitation.
This report is an exploratory, post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial and appears as a preprint that has not undergone peer review. The authors emphasize that the analysis extends beyond the primary endpoint reported in the main trial and that the findings should be considered preliminary. Specifics such as detailed subgroup sample sizes, exact timelines for assessment points, and additional covariates included in the models are described in the full trial report; if not reported in this summary, those details were not provided in the source excerpt.
Given the exploratory nature and preprint status, the authors recommend further investigation in prospective trials with pre-specified sex-stratified analyses to confirm whether sex consistently moderates tDCS response after stroke and to inform personalized rehabilitation strategies.
Note: This summary reflects the content of the NETS trial post-hoc analysis as presented in the preprint. The authors declare no competing interests. The study was approved by the relevant ethics committee and registered (NCT00909714). As a preprint, the findings have not been peer reviewed and should not be used to guide clinical practice.