We appreciate the pertinent comments by Shah and colleagues [1] on our paper pertaining to the use of tDCS in acute stroke patients [2]. We hope that this letter will help bring clarification to our paper. Regarding their first comment on the Lin et al., citation (number 21), we agree that there has been a typo. Lin and colleagues had published two similarly titled papers, one on the Minimal Detectable change for the Wolf Motor Function Test [3], and one for the Stroke Impact Scale [4]. The latter is the one that should have been cited. Their second comment on using the NIHSS is pertinent, and we agree that this is an important prognostic tool for stroke recovery. We did not use the NIHSS scores in this paper, as the primary goal of the study was not to see if there was a correlation between the initial NIHSS score and the potential recovery effects of tDCS, though we do believe that would have been an interesting analysis. Concerning their comment more specifically, we did not use the NIHSS score as a baseline comparator to ensure homogeneity between the two groups, as we believed our exclusion criteria ensured all patients were conscious as well as being able to comprehend and follow our instructions. The other elements of the NIHSS pertained to motricity and sensory functions, which were tested separately, and the NIHSS would have been redundant. Another unfortunate typo was, as mentioned, the intensity of stimulation. The intensity was 2mA for all of the sessions. We agree that studies to compare the effects of higher dosages should be continued. It is our personal belief that there is a lot more research to be done on tDCS in the acute stage stroke. Concerning the adverse effect measurements, we understand the lack of clarity. What we meant by the sentence “Overall, 40 patients (80%) felt a slight tingling( [...] “did not require treatment to stop” was that patients reported at least once during the 20 sessions the aforementioned sensations. Finally, for the last comment, we would like to clarify that only the one mentioned patient had a recurrence of stroke, and therefor was excluded from the final two evaluations. No other patients had recurrent strokes. We would like to thank the authors again for their meticulousness and help in improving the quality and awareness of our paper. Just as they do, we firmly believe that tDCS has a place in routine stroke rehabilitation alongside conventional therapy, and that the field of acute stroke tDCS is exciting and requires further research.

中文翻译：

---

给编辑的回信

我们感谢 Shah 及其同事 [1] 在我们的论文中就 tDCS 在急性卒中患者 [2] 中的使用发表的相关评论。我们希望这封信有助于澄清我们的论文。关于他们对 Lin 等人的第一条评论，引文（第 21 号），我们同意存在拼写错误。Lin 及其同事发表了两篇类似标题的论文，一篇关于 Wolf 运动功能测试的最小可检测变化 [3]，另一篇关于中风影响量表 [4]。后者是应该被引用的。他们关于使用 NIHSS 的第二个评论是中肯的，我们同意这是中风恢复的重要预后工具。我们在这篇论文中没有使用 NIHSS 分数，因为该研究的主要目标不是查看初始 NIHSS 评分与 tDCS 的潜在恢复效果之间是否存在相关性，尽管我们确实相信这会是一个有趣的分析。更具体地说，关于他们的评论，我们没有使用 NIHSS 评分作为基线比较器来确保两组之间的同质性，因为我们相信我们的排除标准确保所有患者都有意识并能够理解和遵循我们的指示。NIHSS 的其他元素与运动和感觉功能有关，它们是单独测试的，而 NIHSS 将是多余的。如前所述，另一个不幸的错字是刺激的强度。所有会话的强度为 2mA。我们同意应该继续进行比较高剂量效果的研究。我们个人认为，对于急性期中风的 tDCS 还需要进行更多的研究。关于不利影响的测量，我们理解缺乏清晰度。我们所说的“总体而言，40 名患者 (80%) 感到轻微刺痛（[...]“不需要治疗即可停止”这句话的意思是，患者在 20 次治疗期间至少报告了一次上述感觉。最后，对于最后的评论，我们想澄清一下，只有提到的一位患者出现脑卒中复发，因此被排除在最后两次评估之外。没有其他患者出现复发性脑卒中。再次感谢作者的细致工作。 评价原文为英语,由 翻译。 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?并帮助提高我们论文的质量和知名度。正如他们所做的那样，