Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37091591›Full record

ArticleBrain communications2023

Transcranial direct current stimulation for post-COVID fatigue: a randomized, double-blind, controlled pilot study.

Silvia Oliver-Mas, Cristina Delgado-Alonso, Alfonso Delgado-Álvarez, María Díez-Cirarda, Constanza Cuevas, Lucía Fernández-Romero, Andreu Matias-Guiu, María Valles-Salgado, Lidia Gil-Martínez, María José Gil-Moreno and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials for the Treatment of Long COVID Syndrome.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Interventions for Long COVID: A Narrative Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Silvia Oliver-MasDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Cristina Delgado-AlonsoDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Alfonso Delgado-ÁlvarezDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
María Díez-CirardaDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Constanza CuevasDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Lucía Fernández-RomeroDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Andreu Matias-GuiuDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
María Valles-SalgadoDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Lidia Gil-MartínezDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
María José Gil-MorenoDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Miguel YusDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Jorge Matias-GuiuDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Jordi A Matias-GuiuDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISCC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5520-2708
Universidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fatigue is one of the most frequent and disabling symptoms of the post-COVID syndrome. In this study, we aimed to assess the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on fatigue severity in a group of patients with post-COVID syndrome and chronic fatigue. We conducted a double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled study to evaluate the short-term effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (2 mA, 20 min/day) on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The modified fatigue impact scale score was used as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included cognition (Stroop test), depressive symptoms (Beck depression inventory) and quality of life (EuroQol-5D). Patients received eight sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation and were evaluated at baseline, immediately after the last session, and one month later. Forty-seven patients were enrolled (23 in the active treatment group and 24 in the sham treatment group); the mean age was 45.66 ± 9.49 years, and 37 (78.72%) were women. The mean progression time since the acute infection was 20.68 ± 6.34 months. Active transcranial direct current stimulation was associated with a statistically significant improvement in physical fatigue at the end of treatment and 1 month as compared with sham stimulation. No significant effect was detected for cognitive fatigue. In terms of secondary outcomes, active transcranial direct current stimulation was associated with an improvement in depressive symptoms at the end of treatment. The treatment had no effects on the quality of life. All the adverse events reported were mild and transient, with no differences between the active stimulation and sham stimulation groups. In conclusion, our results suggest that transcranial direct current stimulation on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may improve physical fatigue. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and optimize stimulation protocols.

Indexed as

brain stimulationcognitiveCOVID-19fatiguepost-COVID syndrome

Identifiers

PMID37091591
PMCPMC10116605
OpenAlexW4363674939

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.