SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Effects of repeated cranial electrotherapy stimulation on physiological and behavioral responses to acute stress: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Clinical Spectrum and Trajectory of Innovative Therapeutic Interventions for Insomnia: A Perspective.Aging and disease · 2023Article
- Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Neurorehabilitation in Post-Stroke Patients.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Observational Study to Assesses the Efficacy and Safety of Microcurrent Therapy with a Portable Device in Patients Suffering from Chronic Back Pain, Skeletal System Pain, Fibromyalgia, Migraine or Depression.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- A Critical Review of Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation for Neuromodulation in Clinical and Non-clinical Samples.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Review
- Current challenges: the ups and downs of tACS.Experimental brain research · 2019Review
- Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) and Other Augmentation Strategies for Therapy-Resistant Depression (TRD): Review of the Evidence and Clinical Advice for Use.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Review
- New Treatment Strategies of Depression: Based on Mechanisms Related to Neuroplasticity.Neural plasticity · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDepression is a mood disorder with a prevalence of approximately 1% to 3% worldwide, representing the fourth leading cause of disease burden globally. The current standard treatments of psychological therapy and antidepressant medications are not effective for everyone, and psychotropic drugs may be associated with significant adverse effects. Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) treatment, in which a low intensity electrical current is administered through the use of a small, portable electrical device, has been reported to have efficacy in the treatment of depression with minimal adverse effects. This systematic review investigated the scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of CES in treatment of acute depression compared to sham, or simulated, CES treatment.
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) compared with sham CES for acute depression. SEARCH
methodsWe searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review group's specialized register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) to February 24, 2014 This register contains relevant randomized controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We examined reference lists of review papers and books on CES. We contacted authors, other experts in the field and CES manufacturing companies for knowledge of suitable published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of CES versus sham CES for the acute treatment of depressive disorder in adults aged 18 to 75 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to extract data from the original reports of included studies independently by two authors. The main outcomes to be assessed were:(1) the efficacy of CES in reducing symptoms of depression as reflected in change scores on standardized depression rating scales.(2) the tolerability of CES treatment to participants, as reflected in rates of discontinuation due to adverse effects.We planned to analyze data using Review Manager 5. MAIN
resultsNo studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere are insufficient methodologically rigorous studies of CES in treatment of acute depression. There is a need for double-blind randomized controlled trials of CES in the treatment of acute depression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.