Leite, Jorge

Foto do perfil

Endereço de Email

Data de nascimento

Cargo

Último Nome

Leite

Primeiro Nome

Jorge

Nome

Jorge Leite

Biografia

Jorge Leite obtained his PhD in 2011 from the University of Minho, where he also completed his Psychology Degree in 2005. From 2013 to 2016, he underwent postdoctoral training at the Neuromodulation Center, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Currently, he holds the positions of Vice-Rector for Research, Associate Professor, and Coordinator of the CINTESIS.UPT. Throughout his career, he has made significant contributions to the field, with over 70 peer-reviewed publications, including articles in journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings. According to Scopus data, over half of his publications are featured in the top 25% of journals, while 45% are among the top 25% most cited documents globally. He has also supervised numerous MSc dissertations and is currently overseeing four PhD theses. Furthermore, he actively participates in various research projects, taking on roles such as Principal Investigator, Researcher, and Supervisor. These projects have successfully secured over 6M euros in funding. His dedication to his work has been recognized with seven awards and/or honors. Furthermore, he has collaborated with 167 fellow researchers in various scientific endeavors.

Identificadores

0000-0002-0323-9012
A71F-2404-41CE
03piNtgAAAAJ
47761976700
E-4404-2013

Projetos de investigação

Unidades organizacionais

Logótipo da unidade
Organização
CINTESIS.UPT - Centro de Investigação em Tecnologias e Serviços de Saúde
Centro de Investigação em Tecnologias e Serviços de Saúde (CINTESIS.UPT), former I2P, is an R&D unit devoted to the study of cognition and behaviour in context. With an interdisciplinary focus, namely on Education, Translational and Applied Psychology

Filtros

Mostrar mais
Limpar filtros

Configurações

Autor: Fregni, Felipe × Autor: Caumo, Wolnei × Data inicial: 2020 × Data final: 2023 × Assunto: Clinical evidence ×

Resultados da pesquisa

A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
  • PublicaçãoAcesso Restrito
    Evidence-based guidelines and secondary meta-analysis for the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in neurological and psychiatric disorders
    2021-04 - Fregni, Felipe; El-Hagrassy, Mirret M.; Pacheco-Barrios, Kevin; Carvalho, Sandra; Simis, Marcel; Brunelin, Jerome; Nakamura-Palacios, Ester Miyuki; Marangolo, Paola; Venkatasubramanian, Ganesan; San-Juan, Daniel; Caumo, Wolnei; Bikson, Marom; Brunoni, André R.; Leite, Jorge
    Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects. Objective We convened a team of tDCS experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than one session of stimulation testing: Pain, Parkinson’s Disease Motor Function and Cognition, Stroke Motor Function and Language, Epilepsy, Major Depressive Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Tourette Syndrome, Schizophrenia and Drug Addiction. Methods Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into: Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective) or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies. Results Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A) such as depression, probably effective (Level B) such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson´s disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain, and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy). Conclusion All recommendations listed here are based on current published Pubmed-indexed data. Despite high level of evidence in some conditions, it needs to be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.