Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29623027›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2018

Preclinical to Clinical Translation of Studies of Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation in the Treatment of Epilepsy: A Systematic Review.

Gabriela G Regner, Patrícia Pereira, Douglas T Leffa, Carla de Oliveira, Rafael Vercelino, Felipe Fregni, Iraci L S Torres

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in treatment of refractory epilepsy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized sham-controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriela G RegnerLaboratory of Neuropharmacology and Preclinical Toxicology, Institute of Basic Health Sciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Patrícia PereiraLaboratory of Neuropharmacology and Preclinical Toxicology, Institute of Basic Health Sciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Douglas T LeffaLaboratory of Pain Pharmacology and Neuromodulation, Preclinical Studies - Pharmacology Department, Institute of Basic Health Sciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Carla de OliveiraLaboratory of Pain Pharmacology and Neuromodulation, Preclinical Studies - Pharmacology Department, Institute of Basic Health Sciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Rafael VercelinoLaboratory of Pain Pharmacology and Neuromodulation, Preclinical Studies - Pharmacology Department, Institute of Basic Health Sciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Felipe FregniLaboratory of Neuromodulation, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States.
Iraci L S TorresLaboratory of Pain Pharmacology and Neuromodulation, Preclinical Studies - Pharmacology Department, Institute of Basic Health Sciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epilepsy is a chronic brain syndrome characterized by recurrent seizures resulting from excessive neuronal discharges. Despite the development of various new antiepileptic drugs, many patients are refractory to treatment and report side effects. Non-invasive methods of brain stimulation, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have been tested as alternative approaches to directly modulate the excitability of epileptogenic neural circuits. Although some pilot and initial clinical studies have shown positive results, there is still uncertainty regarding the next steps of investigation in this field. Therefore, we reviewed preclinical and clinical studies using the following framework: (1) preclinical studies that have been successfully translated to clinical studies, (2) preclinical studies that have failed to be translated to clinical studies, and (3) clinical findings that were not previously tested in preclinical studies. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and SciELO (2002-2017) using the keywords "tDCS," "epilepsy," "clinical trials," and "animal models." Our initial search resulted in 64 articles. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we screened 17 full-text articles to extract findings about the efficacy of tDCS, with respect to the therapeutic framework used and the resulting reduction in seizures and epileptiform patterns. We found that few preclinical findings have been translated into clinical research (number of sessions and effects on seizure frequency) and that most findings have not been tested clinically (effects of tDCS on status epilepticus and absence epilepsy, neuroprotective effects in the hippocampus, and combined use with specific medications). Finally, considering that clinical studies on tDCS have been conducted for several epileptic syndromes, most were not previously tested in preclinical studies (Rasmussen's encephalitis, drug resistant epilepsy, and hippocampal sclerosis-induced epilepsy). Overall, most studies report positive findings. However, it is important to underscore that a successful preclinical study may not indicate success in a clinical study, considering the differences highlighted herein. Although most studies report significant findings, there are still important insights from preclinical work that must be tested clinically. Understanding these factors may improve the evidence for the potential use of this technique as a clinical tool in the treatment of epilepsy.

Indexed as

animal modelsclinical trialsepilepsynon-invasive brain stimulationtranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID29623027
PMCPMC5874505
OpenAlexW2791007281

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.