Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36090277›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2022

Transcranial current stimulation in epilepsy: A systematic review of the fundamental and clinical aspects.

Sara Simula, Maëva Daoud, Giulio Ruffini, Maria Chiara Biagi, Christian-G Bénar, Pascal Benquet, Fabrice Wendling, Fabrice Bartolomei

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Neuroscientific therapies for subjective tinnitus.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sara SimulaAix Marseille Univ, INSERM, INS, Int Neurosci Syst, Marseille, France.
Maëva DaoudAix Marseille Univ, INSERM, INS, Int Neurosci Syst, Marseille, France.
Giulio RuffiniNeuroelectrics Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Maria Chiara BiagiNeuroelectrics Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Christian-G BénarAix Marseille Univ, INSERM, INS, Int Neurosci Syst, Marseille, France.
Pascal BenquetUniv Rennes, INSERM, LTSI-U1099, Rennes, France.
Fabrice WendlingUniv Rennes, INSERM, LTSI-U1099, Rennes, France.
Fabrice BartolomeiAix Marseille Univ, INSERM, INS, Int Neurosci Syst, Marseille, France.
Institut de Neurosciences des Systèmes · FRHôpital de la Timone · FRInserm · FRLaboratoire Traitement du Signal et de l'Image · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Transcranial electrical current stimulation (tES or tCS, as it is sometimes referred to) has been proposed as non-invasive therapy for pharmacoresistant epilepsy. This technique, which includes direct current (tDCS) and alternating current (tACS) stimulation involves the application of weak currents across the cortex to change cortical excitability. Although clinical trials have demonstrated the therapeutic efficacy of tES, its specific effects on epileptic brain activity are poorly understood. We sought to summarize the clinical and fundamental effects underlying the application of tES in epilepsy. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A database search was performed in PUBMED, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL for articles corresponding to the keywords " Results: A total of 56 studies were included in this review. Through these records, we show that tDCS and tACS epileptic patients are safe and clinically relevant techniques for epilepsy. Recent articles reported changes of functional connectivity in epileptic patients after tDCS. We argue that tDCS may act by affecting brain networks, rather than simply modifying local activity in the targeted area. To explain the mechanisms of tES, various cellular effects have been identified. Among them, reduced cell loss, mossy fiber sprouting, and hippocampal BDNF protein levels. Brain modeling and human studies highlight the influence of individual brain anatomy and physiology on the electric field distribution. Computational models may optimize the stimulation parameters and bring new therapeutic perspectives. Conclusion: Both tDCS and tACS are promising techniques for epilepsy patients. Although the clinical effects of tDCS have been repeatedly assessed, only one clinical trial has involved a consistent number of epileptic patients and little knowledge is present about the clinical outcome of tACS. To fill this gap, multicenter studies on tES in epileptic patients are needed involving novel methods such as personalized stimulation protocols based on computational modeling. Furthermore, there is a need for more

Indexed as

brain electric fieldbrain networkdrug-resistant epilepsy (DRE)epilepsyneuromodulationtranscranial current stimulationtranscranial electric stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36090277
PMCPMC9453675
OpenAlexW4293089068

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.