Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24324410›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in systems neuroscience2013

Non-invasive brain stimulation for the treatment of brain diseases in childhood and adolescence: state of the art, current limits and future challenges.

Carmelo M Vicario, Michael A Nitsche

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2017
    Review
  16. Adverse events of tDCS and tACS: A review.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2017
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Carmelo M VicarioSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland St. Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Michael A Nitsche
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decades interest in application of non-invasive brain stimulation for enhancing neural functions is growing continuously. However, the use of such techniques in pediatric populations remains rather limited and mainly confined to the treatment of severe neurological and psychiatric diseases. In this article we provide a complete review of non-invasive brain stimulation studies conducted in pediatric populations. We also provide a brief discussion about the current limitations and future directions in a field of research still very young and full of issues to be explored.

Indexed as

ADHDautismdepressionepilepsypediatric brain stimulationschizophreniaTourettevascular diseases

Identifiers

PMID24324410
PMCPMC3838957
OpenAlexW2010801534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.