ArticleShanghai archives of psychiatry2016
Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Auditory Hallucinations: A Systematic Review.
Article in Shanghai archives of psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Report: Lesion network guided transcranial direct current stimulation targeting treatment refractory hallucinations and delusions: a traditional and accelerated stimulation case study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Multidimensional Connectomics and Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: Linking Phenotypic Circuits to Targeted Therapeutics.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Review
- No Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Auditory Cortex on Auditory-Evoked Potentials.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- Long-term response to cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of temporoparietal junction in a patient with refractory auditory hallucinations of schizophrenia.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasion brain stimulation, which has been suggested as a safe and promising treatment for auditory hallucinations, however, no systematic review has been conducted to evaluate the effects of tDCS on auditory hallucinations (AH).
objectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of tDCS for auditory hallucinations among patients with schizophrenia.
methodsWe searched relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, WANFANG DATA, Chinese Biological Medical Literature Database, and Taiwan Electronic Periodical Services (TEPS) before February 13, 2016. Studies were selected based on pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each included study was assessed by the risk of bias table. The levels of evidence of primary outcomes were evaluated using GRADE criteria. Data synthesis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.
results304 papers were screened. Finally, three studies with a combined sample size of 87 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies were classified as having 'low risk of bias', one study was classified as having 'unclear'. Inconsistent results and the overall level of evidence of primary outcome was graded as 'low'.
conclusionsThe sample sizes of the published studies were small and the results were inconsistent. We could not draw any strong conclusions from these trials. Further high quality RCTs with large sample sizes are needed to assess the efficacy of tDCS for auditory hallucinations in patients with schizophrenia.
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.