ArticleScientific reports2024
Stakeholder perspectives on non-invasive brain stimulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals toward the use of noninvasive neuromodulation technology in the treatment of cognitive disorders.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Home use of low-intensity transcranial electrical stimulation in clinical practice: an IFCN handbook chapter.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Review
- Differential Impacts of Fronto-Cerebellar tACS and tVNS on Motor Learning: Evidence for Sex-Related Neural Modulation.Neural plasticity · 2026Article
- Exploring Acceptance of Pain Management Strategies in Oncology: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Current landscape of newer non-invasive brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders across South Asia.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have made great progress in recent years and offer boundless potential for the neuroscientific research and treatment of disorders. However, the possible use of NIBS devices for neuro-doping and neuroenhancement in healthy individuals and the military are poorly regulated. The great potentials and diverse applications can have an impact on the future development of the technology and society. This participatory study therefore aims to summarize the perspectives of different stakeholder groups with the help of qualitative workshops. Nine qualitative on-site and virtual workshops were conducted in the study with 91 individuals from seven stakeholder groups: patients, students, do-it-yourself home users of tDCS, clinical practitioners, industry representatives, philosophers, and policy experts. The co-creative and design-based workshops were tailored to each group to document the wishes, fears, and general comments of the participants. The outlooks from each group were collected in written form and summarized into different categories. The result is a comprehensive overview of the different aspects that need to be considered in the field of NIBS. For example, several groups expressed the wish for home-based tDCS under medical supervision as a potential therapeutic intervention and discussed the associated technical specifications. Other topics that were addressed were performance enhancement for certain professional groups, training requirements for practitioners, and questions of agency, among others. This qualitative participatory research highlights the potential of tDCS and repetitive TMS as alternative therapies to medication, with fewer adverse effects and home-based use for tDCS. The ethical and societal impact of the abuse of NIBS for non-clinical use must be considered for policy-making and regulation implementations. This study adds to the neuroethical debate on the responsible use and application of NIBS technologies, taking into consideration the different perspectives of important stakeholders in the field.
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.