4.5 Review

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyaa051

关键词

tDCS; clinical evidence; evidence-based medicine; neurological disorders; psychiatric disorders

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 AT009491-01A1]
  2. NIH [R01 -5R01HD082302-03]
  3. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [BT/HRD-NBA-NWB/38/2019-20(6)]
  4. FCT
  5. COMPETE 2020 -PO Competitividade e Internacionalizacao/Portugal 2020/Uniao Europeia, FEDER (Fundos Europeus Estruturais e de Investimento -FEEI) [PTDC/PSI-ESP/30280]
  6. FEDER funds through the Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade -COMPETE
  7. FCT -Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [IF/00091/2015, PTDC/PSI-ESP/29701/2017]
  8. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/PSI-ESP/29701/2017] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transcranial direct current stimulation has demonstrated clinical efficacy in various conditions, with some indications showing definite effectiveness and others showing probable effectiveness. Most studies had low risk of biases and significant effect sizes, making it a promising treatment option in several medical fields.
Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects. Objective: We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 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, and 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 the 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 levels of evidence in some conditions, it must 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据