SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2023
Efficacy of electrical cranial stimulation for treatment of psychiatric symptoms in patients with anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Therapeutic effects of electrical cranial stimulation (CES) in patients suffering from anxiety remained unclear. This meta-analysis aimed at investigating acceptability and therapeutic efficacy of CES against anxiety, depression, and insomnia for patients who experienced symptoms of anxiety. Methods: Major electronic databases were searched from inception until December 10, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) focusing on therapeutic effectiveness of CES in patients whose primary complaints included anxiety. Effect sizes (ES) for different treatment outcomes were estimated by using generic inverse variance method. Results: Eight RCTs were identified including a total of 337 participants. The therapeutic effectiveness of CES was significantly better than that in the control groups for anxiety (ES=-0.96, Conclusion: Our study supported the use of CES for symptoms of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in those suffering from anxiety with fair acceptability and demonstrated the efficacy of "Alpha-Stim", the most commonly used device for CES, in this patient population. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022382619.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.