Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31228880›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2019

The time course of ineffective sham-blinding during low-intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation.

Robert Greinacher, Larissa Buhôt, Lisa Möller, Gemma Learmonth

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Robert GreinacherSchool of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Larissa BuhôtSchool of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Lisa MöllerSchool of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Gemma LearmonthSchool of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4061-4464
University of Glasgow · GBTechnische Universität Berlin · DEWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 209209/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) typically compare an active protocol relative to a shorter sham (placebo) protocol. Both protocols are presumed to be perceptually identical on the scalp, and thus represent an effective method of delivering double-blinded experimental designs. However, participants often show above-chance accuracy when asked which condition involved active/sham retrospectively. We assessed the time course of sham-blinding during active and sham tDCS. We predicted that participants would be aware that the current is switched on for longer in the active versus sham protocol. Thirty-two adults were tested in a preregistered, double-blinded, within-subjects design. A forced-choice reaction time task was undertaken before, during and after active (10 min 1 mA) and sham (20 s 1 mA) tDCS. The anode was placed over the left primary motor cortex (C3) to target the right hand, and the cathode on the right forehead. Two probe questions were asked every 30 s: "Is the stimulation on?" and "How sure are you?". Distinct periods of non-overlapping confidence intervals were identified between conditions, totalling 5 min (57.1% of the total difference in stimulation time). These began immediately after sham ramp-down and lasted until the active protocol had ended. We therefore show a failure of placebo control during 1 mA tDCS. These results highlight the need to develop more effective methods of sham-blinding during transcranial electrical stimulation protocols, even when delivered at low-intensity current strengths.

Indexed as

AwarenessTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexPerceptionTime FactorsYoung Adultplaceboprimary motor cortexreaction timeshamtDCS

Identifiers

PMID31228880
PMCPMC6899874
OpenAlexW2952174943

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.