Trial reportBrain stimulation
Tolerability of Repeated Application of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation with Limited Outputs to Healthy Subjects.
Trial report in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Long-Term Maintenance of Upper Limb Motor Improvements Following Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Rehabilitation in People with Stroke: A Systematic Review of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative effects of transcranial direct and alternating current stimulation combined with cognitive-motor dual-task training on functional and cognitive recovery in stroke survivors.Frontiers in neurologyTrial
- Optimizing Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation Based on Frequency-Dependent Tissue Modeling and Signal Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Participant-centered tolerability of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation: insights from two crossover studies.Bioelectronic medicine · 2026Article
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Wearable disposable electrotherapy.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Temporal Dynamics of Adverse Effects across Five Sessions of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Evaluation of tolerability and safety of transcranial electrical stimulation with gel particle electrodes in healthy subjects.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Repeated Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (RA-tDCS) over the Left Frontal Lobe Increases Bilateral Hippocampal Cell Proliferation in Young Adult but Not Middle-Aged Female Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Long-term effects of repeated multitarget high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation combined with cognitive training on response inhibition gains.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) reduces motivation to drink ethanol and reacquisition of ethanol self-administration in female mice.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Phantom Construction and Equipment Configurations for Characterizing Electrical Properties Using MRI.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Immediate and after effects of transcranial direct-current stimulation in the mouse primary somatosensory cortex.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Repetitive visual cortex transcranial random noise stimulation in adults with amblyopia.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Modulation of solute diffusivity in brain tissue as a novel mechanism of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Novel flexible cap for application of transcranial electrical stimulation: a usability study.Biomedical engineering online · 2020Article
- Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates brain functional connectivity in autism.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2020Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Use in Warfighting: Benefits, Risks, and Future Prospects.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Review
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool for Chronic Pain.The journal of ECT · 2018Review
- Using transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) to understand cognitive processing.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe safety and tolerability of limited output transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) in clinical populations support a non-significant risk designation. The tolerability of long-term use in a healthy population had remained untested.
objectiveWe tested the tolerability and compliance of two tES waveforms, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and modulated high frequency transcranial pulsed current stimulation (MHF-tPCS) compared to sham-tDCS, applied to healthy subjects for three to five days (17-20 minutes per day) per week for up to six weeks in a communal setting. MHF-tPCS consisted of asymmetric high-frequency pulses (7-11 kHz) having a peak amplitude of 10-20 mA peak, adjusted by subject, resulting in an average current of 5-7 mA.
methodA total of 100 treatment blind healthy subjects were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: tDCS (n = 33), MHF-tPCS (n = 30), or sham-tDCS (n = 37). In order to test the role of waveform, electrode type and montage were fixed across tES and sham-tDCS arms: high-capacity self-adhering electrodes on the right lateral forehead and back of the neck. We conducted 1905 sessions (636 sham-tDCS, 623 tDCS, and 646 MHF-tPCS sessions) on study volunteers over a period of six weeks.
resultsCommon adverse events were primarily restricted to influences upon the skin and included skin tingling, itching, and mild burning sensations. The incidence of these events in the active tES treatment arms (MHF-tPCS, tDCS) was equivalent or significantly lower than their incidence in the sham-tDCS treatment arm. Other adverse events had a rarity (<5% incidence) that could not be significantly distinguished across the treatment groups. Some subjects were withdrawn from the study due to atypical headache (sham-tDCS n = 2, tDCS n = 2, and MHF-tPCS n = 3), atypical discomfort (sham-tDCS n = 0, tDCS n = 1, and MHF-tPCS n = 1), or atypical skin irritation (sham-tDCS n = 2, tDCS n = 8, and MHF-tPCS n = 1). The rate of compliance, elected sessions completed, for the MHF-tPCS group was significantly greater than the sham-tDCS group's compliance (p = 0.007). There were no serious adverse events in any treatment condition.
conclusionWe conclude that repeated application of limited output tES across extended periods, limited to the hardware, electrodes, and protocols tested here, is well tolerated in healthy subjects, as previously observed in clinical populations.
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.