Why non-invasive brain stimulation should not be used in military and security services.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Home use of low-intensity transcranial electrical stimulation in clinical practice: an IFCN handbook chapter.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026
   Review
2. Stakeholder perspectives on non-invasive brain stimulation.Scientific reports · 2024
   Article
3. Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2022
   Review
4. "Self-Neuroenhancement": The Last Frontier of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation?Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2020
   Article
5. Neuroscience perspectives on security.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2014
   Article
6. Is it ethical and safe to use non-invasive brain stimulation as a cognitive and motor enhancer device for military services? A reply to Sehm and Ragert ().Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2013
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as