Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35624908›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2022

Inter-Individual Variability in tDCS Effects: A Narrative Review on the Contribution of Stable, Variable, and Contextual Factors.

Alessandra Vergallito, Sarah Feroldi, Alberto Pisoni, Leonor J Romero Lauro

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. White matter predicts tDCS antidepressant effects in a sham-controlled clinical trial study.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2023
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Alessandra VergallitoDepartment of Psychology & NeuroMi, University of Milano Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy.
Sarah FeroldiSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20854 Monza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6986-5940
Alberto PisoniDepartment of Psychology & NeuroMi, University of Milano Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy.
Leonor J Romero LauroDepartment of Psychology & NeuroMi, University of Milano Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to its safety, portability, and cheapness, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) use largely increased in research and clinical settings. Despite tDCS's wide application, previous works pointed out inconsistent and low replicable results, sometimes leading to extreme conclusions about tDCS's ineffectiveness in modulating behavioral performance across cognitive domains. Traditionally, this variability has been linked to significant differences in the stimulation protocols across studies, including stimulation parameters, target regions, and electrodes montage. Here, we reviewed and discussed evidence of heterogeneity emerging at the intra-study level, namely inter-individual differences that may influence the response to tDCS within each study. This source of variability has been largely neglected by literature, being results mainly analyzed at the group level. Previous research, however, highlighted that only a half-or less-of studies' participants could be classified as responders, being affected by tDCS in the expected direction. Stable and variable inter-individual differences, such as morphological and genetic features vs. hormonal/exogenous substance consumption, partially account for this heterogeneity. Moreover, variability comes from experiments' contextual elements, such as participants' engagement/baseline capacity and individual task difficulty. We concluded that increasing knowledge on inter-dividual differences rather than undermining tDCS effectiveness could enhance protocols' efficiency and reproducibility.

Indexed as

inter-individual differencesinter-subject variabilitynoninvasive brain stimulationreproducibilitytDCS

Identifiers

PMID35624908
PMCPMC9139102

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.