Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27372844›Full record

Trial reportBrain stimulation

Tolerability of Repeated Application of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation with Limited Outputs to Healthy Subjects.

Bhaskar Paneri, Devin Adair, Chris Thomas, Niranjan Khadka, Vaishali Patel, William J Tyler, Lucas Parra, Marom Bikson

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Wearable disposable electrotherapy.Nature communications · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bhaskar PaneriDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA.
Devin AdairDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA.
Chris ThomasDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA.
Niranjan KhadkaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA.
Vaishali PatelDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA.
William J TylerSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA.
Lucas ParraDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA.
Marom BiksonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York 10031, USA. Electronic address: bikson@ccny.cuny.edu.
City College of New York · USArizona State University · US

Funding

Targeted Transcranial Electrotherapy to accelerate Stroke Rehabilitation-Exploratory Trial on AphasiaR44NS092144 · NINDS · SOTERIX MEDICAL,INC. · PI DATTA, ABHISHEK, PARRA, LUCAS C · 2015 to 2018
$3.0M
Effects of direct-current stimulation on synaptic plasticityR01NS095123 · NINDS · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI PARRA, LUCAS C · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS095123NINDS NIH HHS R44 NS092144
6 · The paper itself

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

AdolescentAdultElectrodesFemaleHeadacheHealthy VolunteersHumansMalePruritusTranscranial Direct Current StimulationYoung AdultComplianceExtended useHealthy populationMHF-tPCStDCSTolerability

Identifiers

PMID27372844
PMCPMC5786157
OpenAlexW2403999365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.