Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39600390›Full record

ReviewDigital health

The effectiveness of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation on chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Annibale Antonioni, Andrea Baroni, Giulia Fregna, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Sofia Straudi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Pitfalls of insomnia management in the elderly: A narrative review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Annibale AntonioniDepartment of Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1555-6418
Andrea BaroniDepartment of Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Giulia FregnaDepartment of Neuroscience, Ferrara University Hospital, Ferrara, Italy.
Ishtiaq AhmedPain in Motion International Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Sofia StraudiDepartment of Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: As highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, identifying strategies for home-based patient management is crucial. As pain is highly prevalent and imposes significant burdens, interest in its remote management is steadily increasing. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) seems promising in this context. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of home-based tDCS in pain management (PROSPERO, CRD42023452899). The extracted data included clinical conditions, interventions, comparators, outcome measures, adverse effects, and risk of bias; the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was carried out. Results: 12 records (9 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 446 participants, 266 undergoing tDCS) were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that home-based tDCS might produce large and clinically relevant improvement in chronic pain intensity at the end of the intervention (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.95, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.56; Conclusions: Low to moderate certainty evidence suggests that home-based self-administered tDCS is a safe and effective tool for managing various types of chronic pain. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs are warranted.

Indexed as

fibromyalgiahome-basedknee osteoarthritisnoninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS)Painrehabilitationtranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39600390
PMCPMC11590159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.