Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27145765›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2016

The effect of the interval-between-sessions on prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cognitive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Josefien Dedoncker, Andre R Brunoni, Chris Baeken, Marie-Anne Vanderhasselt

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07531888 (Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07531888 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Cognitive Function in Older Adults With Subjective Cognitive Decline: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de HidalgoRan2026 to 2026Enrolled20ConditionsCognitive Dysfunction ( MMSE < 24 )ArmsTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Josefien DedonckerDepartment of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, University Hospital Ghent (UZ Ghent), Ghent University, 1K12F, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. josefien.dedoncker@gmail.com.
Andre R BrunoniService of Interdisciplinary Neuromodulation, Laboratory of Neurosciences (LIM-27), Department and Institute of Psychiatry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Chris BaekenDepartment of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, University Hospital Ghent (UZ Ghent), Ghent University, 1K12F, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Marie-Anne VanderhasseltDepartment of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, University Hospital Ghent (UZ Ghent), Ghent University, 1K12F, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, there has been wide interest in the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) on cognitive functioning. However, many methodological questions remain unanswered. One of them is whether the time interval between active and sham-controlled stimulation sessions, i.e. the interval between sessions (IBS), influences DLPFC tDCS effects on cognitive functioning. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of experimental studies published in PubMed, Science Direct, and other databases from the first data available to February 2016. Single session sham-controlled within-subject studies reporting the effects of tDCS of the DLPFC on cognitive functioning in healthy controls and neuropsychiatric patients were included. Cognitive tasks were categorized in tasks assessing memory, attention, and executive functioning. Evaluation of 188 trials showed that anodal vs. sham tDCS significantly decreased response times and increased accuracy, and specifically for the executive functioning tasks, in a sample of healthy participants and neuropsychiatric patients (although a slightly different pattern of improvement was found in analyses for both samples separately). The effects of cathodal vs. sham tDCS (45 trials), on the other hand, were not significant. IBS ranged from less than 1 h to up to 1 week (i.e. cathodal tDCS) or 2 weeks (i.e. anodal tDCS). This IBS length had no influence on the estimated effect size when performing a meta-regression of IBS on reaction time and accuracy outcomes in all three cognitive categories, both for anodal and cathodal stimulation. Practical recommendations and limitations of the study are further discussed.

Indexed as

SeasonsTranscranial Direct Current StimulationCognitionDatabases, BibliographicHumansNeuropsychological TestsPrefrontal CortexCognitionDorsolateral prefrontal cortexMeta-analysisNoninvasive brain stimulationSystematic reviewTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.