Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28855877›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2017

Sex and Electrode Configuration in Transcranial Electrical Stimulation.

Michael J Russell, Theodore A Goodman, Joseph M Visse, Laurel Beckett, Naomi Saito, Bruce G Lyeth, Gregg H Recanzone

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Michael J RussellAaken Laboratories, Davis, CA, United States.
Theodore A GoodmanSutter Center for Psychiatry, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Joseph M VisseAaken Laboratories, Davis, CA, United States.
Laurel BeckettDivision of Biostatistics, Davis School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Naomi SaitoDivision of Biostatistics, Davis School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Bruce G LyethDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Gregg H RecanzoneCenter for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) can be an effective non-invasive neuromodulation procedure. Unfortunately, the considerable variation in reported treatment outcomes, both within and between studies, has made the procedure unreliable for many applications. To determine if individual differences in cranium morphology and tissue conductivity can account for some of this variation, the electrical density at two cortical locations (temporal and frontal) directly under scalp electrodes was modeled using a validated MRI modeling procedure in 23 subjects (12 males and 11 females). Three different electrode configurations (non-cephalic, bi-cranial, and ring) commonly used in tES were modeled at three current intensities (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mA). The aims were to assess the effects of configuration and current intensity on relative current received at a cortical brain target directly under the stimulating electrode and to characterize individual variation. The different electrode configurations resulted in up to a ninefold difference in mean current densities delivered to the brains. The ring configuration delivered the least current and the non-cephalic the most. Female subjects showed much less current to the brain than male subjects. Individual differences in the current received and differences in electrode configurations may account for significant variability in current delivered and, thus, potentially a significant portion of reported variation in clinical outcomes at two commonly targeted regions of the brain.

Indexed as

10–20 systemalternating current stimulationdirect current stimulationelectrical targetinghigh density stimulationMRI modelingtranscranial electrical stimulation

Identifiers

PMID28855877
PMCPMC5558260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.