Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30025152›Full record

Trial reportAlcoholism, clinical and experimental research2018

A Clinical Trial with Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Attentional Bias Modification in Alcohol-Dependent Patients.

Tess E den Uyl, Thomas E Gladwin, Johannes Lindenmeyer, Reinout W Wiers

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Tess E den UylAddiction, Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7717-3418
Thomas E GladwinCollege Lane, University of Chichester, Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
Johannes LindenmeyerSalus Klinik, Lindow, Germany.
Reinout W WiersAddiction, Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLSalus Klinik · DEUniversity of Chichester · GB

Funding

European Foundation for Alcohol Research (ERAB) EA 1239N.W.O. (Dutch Science Foundation) Research Talent Grant 406-11-203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModifying attentional processes with attentional bias modification (ABM) might be a relevant add-on to treatment in addiction. This study investigated whether influencing cortical plasticity with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could increase training effects. tDCS could also help alcohol-dependent patients to overcome craving and reduce relapse, independent of training. These approaches were combined to investigate effects in the treatment of alcoholism.

methodsNinety-eight patients (analytical sample = 83) were randomly assigned to 4 groups in a 2-by-2 factorial design. Patients received 4 sessions of ABM (control or real training) combined with 2 mA tDCS (active: 20 minutes or sham: 30 seconds) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Alcohol bias and craving were assessed, and treatment outcome was measured as relapse after 1 year.

resultsAttentional bias scores indicated that during the training only the group with active tDCS and real ABM displayed an overall avoidance bias (p < 0.05). From pre- to postassessment, there were no main or interaction effects of tDCS and ABM on the bias scores, craving, or relapse (p > 0.2). However, effects on relapse after active tDCS were in the expected direction.

conclusionsThere was no evidence of a beneficial effect of tDCS or ABM or the combination. Whether the absence of effect was due to issues with the outcome measurements (e.g., lack of craving, high dropout, and unreliable measurements) or aspects of the intervention should be further investigated.

Indexed as

AdultAlcoholismAttentional BiasCombined Modality TherapyDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationSubstance Abuse Treatment CentersTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAddictionAlcoholCognitive Bias ModificationTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30025152
PMCPMC6175348
OpenAlexW2883847588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.