Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40533536›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation on seizure control in patients with refractory epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Nada Ibrahim Hendi, Yaser AbuSammour, Mohamed Khaled, Ahmed S Mohamed, Ahmed Mostafa Amin, Mohamed Saleh Fallaha, Basma Kamel, Yehia Nabil Abdalla Helmy, Mohamed Ali Saeed Hassan, Mostafa Meshref

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Nada Ibrahim HendiFaculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. nada.i.hendi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1201-0487
Yaser AbuSammourFaculty of Medicine, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-salt, Jordan.
Mohamed KhaledFaculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Ahmed S MohamedFaculty of Medicine, Merit University, Sohag, Egypt.
Ahmed Mostafa AminFaculty of Medicine, AL-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed Saleh FallahaFaculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Basma KamelFaculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Daqahleya, Egypt.
Yehia Nabil Abdalla HelmyFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Sharkeya, Egypt.
Mohamed Ali Saeed HassanDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mostafa MeshrefDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug-resistant epilepsy is a challenging condition that affects around 30% of all patients with epilepsy. Evidence regarding treatment options is limited, especially for surgery and invasive techniques. However, non-invasive techniques constitute a promising alternative for these patients. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation on seizure frequency management in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. We searched the literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to December 2023. We included randomized controlled trials that compared transcranial direct current stimulation with sham stimulation. Our main outcomes of interest were a percentage reduction in seizure frequency and epileptiform discharge frequency. A total of 10 studies with 269 patients were included. Monthly seizure frequency was significantly reduced by an average of -45.39%and -39.34% at week 4 and week 8, respectively. There was a significant reduction in IED in favor of tDCS at week 2 (SMD = -0.87, 95% CI = [- 1.49, - 0.25], P = 0.006), 4 weeks (SMD = -1.17, 95% CI = [- 1.67, - 0.66], P < 0.00001, Moderate quality of evidence) and 8 weeks (SMD = -1.11, 95% CI = [- 1.69, - 0.53], P = 0.0002) of follow-up. There were no serious adverse events associated with the stimulation. Transcranial direct current stimulation was associated with a reduction in both seizure frequency and epileptiform discharges with minimal side effects. Further studies with larger sample sizes and consensus protocol guidelines are needed to verify its long-term safety and effectiveness.

Indexed as

Drug Resistant EpilepsySeizuresTranscranial Direct Current StimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeDrug-resistant epilepsyNon-invasive neurostimulationSeizure frequencytDCSTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID40533536
PMCPMC12177013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.