Home › Research › Clinical safety
A comprehensive database of published tDCS clinical trials (2005-2016)
Lefaucheur JP.. Neurophysiologie clinique = Clinical neurophysiology, 2016-11-17
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique of noninvasive cortical stimulation allowing significant modification of brain functions. Clinical application of this technique was reported for the first time in March 2005. This paper presents a detailed list of the 340 articles (excluding single case reports) which have assessed the clinical effect of tDCS in patients, at least when delivered to cortical targets. The reviewed conditions were: pain syndromes, Parkinson's disease, dystonia, cerebral palsy, post-stroke limb motor impairment, post-stroke neglect, post-stroke dysphagia, post-stroke aphasia, primary progressive aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia, tinnitus, depression, auditory hallucinations and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, addiction and craving, autism, and attention disorders. The following data were collected: (i) clinical condition; (ii) study design; (iii) sample size; (iv) anode and cathode locations; (v) stimulation intensity and electrode area; (vi) number and duration of sessions; (vii) clinical outcome measures and results. This article does not include any meta-analysis and aims simply at providing a comprehensive overview of the raw data reported in this field to date, as an aid to researchers.
Key findings
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique of noninvasive cortical stimulation allowing significant modification of brain functions.
- The following data were collected: (i) clinical condition; (ii) study design; (iii) sample size; (iv) anode and cathode locations; (v) stimulation intensity and electrode area; (vi) number and duration of sessions; (vii) clinical outcome measures and results.
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurophysiologie clinique = Clinical neurophysiology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27865707) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Lefaucheur, J. P. (2016). A comprehensive database of published tDCS clinical trials (2005-2016). Neurophysiologie clinique = Clinical neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2016.10.002
Vancouver
Lefaucheur JP. A comprehensive database of published tDCS clinical trials (2005-2016). Neurophysiologie clinique = Clinical neurophysiology. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.neucli.2016.10.002. PMID: 27865707.
BibTeX
@article{lefaucheur2016-27865707,
author = {Lefaucheur, J. P.},
title = {{A comprehensive database of published tDCS clinical trials (2005-2016)}},
journal = {Neurophysiologie clinique = Clinical neurophysiology},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1016/j.neucli.2016.10.002},
pmid = {27865707},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2016.10.002}
}
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also in Clinical safety
96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.