ReviewJournal of neurosciences in rural practice
Transcranial direct current stimulation-efficacy in mild cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and safety of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A randomized, triple-blind, sham-controlled trial.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Trial
- Predicting the Beneficial Effects of Cognitive Stimulation and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment with Clinical, Inflammation, and Human Microglia Exposed to Serum as Potential Markers: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Trial
- Is Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Effective for Cognitive Dysfunction in Substance Use Disorders? A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a transition state in which individuals have cognitive abilities that are in between those of normal aging and dementia. Although not everyone with MCI develops dementia, the risk of progression to dementia is higher in people with MCI. Interventions at this stage can prevent or delay the onset of dementia. In recent years, studies on non-invasive brain stimulation techniques, namely transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have gained momentum for cognitive enhancement in MCI. Since there are very few studies that also report varied results, it becomes important to analyze the effect of tDCS in MCI. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available evidence about using tDCS for MCI and to assess its efficacy using meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Eight single- or double-blinded randomized controlled trials were included in the study. Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE) for global cognition; and digit span test forward and backward, trail-making test (TMT) A and B; and logical memory test (LMT) assessing specific cognitive domains were considered. A random-effects model was used wherein the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence intervals were reported. Results: The effect of the active tDCS (MoCA [SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.22-0.95], MMSE [SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.25-0.77], TMT-A [SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.42-0.40], and LMT [SMD 0.80, 95% CI -0.24-1.83]) when compared with the sham tDCS was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: The current meta-analysis identified insignificant improvement in cognitive performance with active tDCS treatment as compared to sham tDCS among people with MCI.
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.