Trial reportPain2025
Independent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation and social influence on pain.
Trial report in Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Lower resting-state functional connectivity between frontoparietal and sensory networks is associated with recent pain intensity in a community sample of youth.Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- Temporal Interference Stimulation of the Motor Cortex Produces Frequency-Dependent Analgesia.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulatory technique with the potential to provide pain relief. However, tDCS effects on pain are variable across existing studies, possibly related to differences in stimulation protocols and expectancy effects. We investigated the independent and joint effects of contralateral motor cortex tDCS (anodal vs cathodal) and socially induced expectations (analgesia vs hyperalgesia) about tDCS on thermal pain. We employed a double-blind, randomized 2 × 2 factorial cross-over design, with 5 sessions per participant on separate days. After calibration in Session 1, Sessions 2 to 5 crossed anodal or cathodal tDCS (20 minutes 2 mA) with socially induced analgesic or hyperalgesic expectations, with 6 to 7 days between the sessions. The social manipulation involved videos of previous "participants" (confederates) describing tDCS as inducing a low-pain state ("analgesic expectancy") or hypersensitivity to sensation ("hyperalgesic expectancy"). Anodal tDCS reduced pain compared with cathodal stimulation (F(1,19.9) = 19.53, P < 0.001, Cohen d = 0.86) and analgesic expectancy reduced pain compared with hyperalgesic expectancy (F(1,19.8) = 5.62, P = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.56). There was no significant interaction between tDCS and social expectations. Effects of social suggestions were related to expectations, whereas tDCS effects were unrelated to expectancies. The observed additive effects provide novel evidence that tDCS and socially induced expectations operate through independent processes. They extend clinical tDCS studies by showing tDCS effects on controlled nociceptive pain independent of expectancy effects. In addition, they show that social suggestions about neurostimulation effects can elicit potent placebo effects.
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.