ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Effects of repeated cranial electrotherapy stimulation on physiological and behavioral responses to acute stress: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06034496 (Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation (CES) Influences on Acute Stress Responses
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: Multimodal clinical and neurophysiological effects of cranial electrotherapy stimulation in a patient with chronic stress and sleep disturbance.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Inferring Mental States via Linear and Non-Linear Body Movement Dynamics: A Pilot Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Background: Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is a low-intensity, pulsed neuromodulation technique widely marketed for reducing stress and anxiety. Despite its popularity, empirical evidence for its efficacy remains mixed, with few studies employing rigorous controls, standardized protocols, and repeated CES exposures. Objective: To evaluate whether repeated CES sessions can attenuate physiological, biochemical, cognitive, and affective responses to an acute laboratory stressor. Methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 46 healthy participants (27 military personnel, 19 civilians). Participants were randomized to receive either active CES (250-500 μA at 0.5Hz, individualized intensity) or sham stimulation for 20 sessions over approximately four weeks. At baseline and follow-up visits, participants underwent acute stress induction using torso shock; measures included physiological (heart rate, heart rate variability, respiration rate, pupil diameter), biochemical (salivary alpha-amylase, cortisol), cognitive (spatial orientation, recognition memory, decision-making), and affective (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) indices. Results: Stress induction reliably elevated sympathetic-adrenal medulla (SAM) and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) markers as well as subjective anxiety. However, across nearly all outcomes, active CES did not differ significantly from sham, nor were there interactions with session (baseline vs. follow-up). No meaningful group differences were observed in stress recovery, self-reported anxiety, or stress-related cognitive performance. Conclusions: These predominantly null findings challenge prevailing mechanistic accounts of CES and suggest limited efficacy in buffering acute stress responses in healthy, neurotypical individuals. Further controlled trials are needed to explore alternative parameters, populations, and neurophysiological endpoints to better understand CES's therapeutic potential. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT06034496.
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.