ReviewBrain sciences2023
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Effects on Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) and Nociceptive Processing in Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for central post-stroke pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Critical review of the evidence for Vojta Therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation for persistent pain state in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2026Trial
- High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhances Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia in Healthy Individuals: An fNIRS Study.Brain and behavior · 2025Trial
- Modulating cortical excitability through transcranial direct current stimulation combined with therapeutic exercise for craniofacial myofascial pain: Randomized controlled trial.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to determine the effect that different tDCS protocols have on pain processing in healthy people, assessed using quantitative sensory tests (QST) and evoked pain intensity.
methodsWe systematically searched in EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles on tDCS on a healthy population and regarding QST, such as pressure pain thresholds (PPT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), cold pain threshold (CPT), or evoked pain intensity were selected. Quality was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and PEDro scale.
resultsTwenty-six RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and sixteen in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in PPTs between tDCS and sham, but differences were observed when applying tDCS over S1 in PPTs compared to sham. Significant differences in CPTs were observed between tDCS and sham over DLPFC and differences in pain intensity were observed between tDCS and sham over M1. Non-significant effects were found for the effects of tDCS on HPTs.
conclusiontDCS anodic over S1 stimulation increases PPTs, while a-tDCS over DLPFC affects CPTs. The HPTs with tDCS are worse. Finally, M1 a-tDCS seems to reduce evoked pain intensity in healthy subjects.
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.