Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41380142›Full record

Trial reportPain2026

Transcranial direct current stimulation of primary motor cortex reduces thermal pain.

Amin Dehghani, David M Gantz, Ethan K Murphy, Michael A Nitsche, Ryan J Halter, Tor D Wager

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pain, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Amin DehghaniDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.
David M GantzDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.
Ethan K MurphyThayer School of Engineering and Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.
Michael A NitscheUniversity Clinic of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, University Hospital OWL, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Ryan J HalterThayer School of Engineering and Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.
Tor D WagerDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1936-5574

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Fred W Kolling IV · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
The neural bases of placebo effects and their relation to regulatory processesR37MH076136 · NIMH · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI TOR D. WAGER · 2024 to 2026
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NIMH NIH HHS R37 MH076136
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique with growing potential for pain modulation. However, previous studies have often been limited by small sample sizes, limited outcome reliability, and blinding issues. Pre-registered randomized trials are needed to establish efficacy and reproducibility. Here, we report results from a pre-registered, triple-blind, randomized within-subject crossover trial (N = 50), investigating the effects of left motor cortex (M1) tDCS on experimentally evoked thermal pain in healthy adults. Participants underwent individualized pain calibration, then received anodal, cathodal, and sham M1-tDCS in counterbalanced order on separate visits 4 or more days apart. We assessed post-tDCS thermal pain, potential blinding, side effects, and reaction time during pain rating. Anodal tDCS significantly reduced pain compared with cathodal and sham stimulation ( P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.93 and 0.85, respectively; P < 0.001). Cathodal tDCS increased pain relative to sham (Cohen's d = 0.34, P < 0.01). These effects remained stable throughout the 35-minute post-tDCS pain testing period, with no evidence of decay over time. Blinding assessments confirmed that participants were unable to reliably identify the sham session. Anodal tDCS also modestly increased reaction time in the left (ipsilateral) hand ( P < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.16), consistent with interhemispheric inhibition, which was uncorrelated with analgesia ( P > 0.10). This study provides strong evidence for reliable and polarity-dependent modulation of experimental pain by M1-tDCS.

Indexed as

Motor CortexPainPain ManagementTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAdultCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHot TemperatureHumansMalePain MeasurementPain ThresholdReaction TimeYoung AdultAnodalBlinding assessmentCathodalInterhemispheric inhibitionLeft motor cortex (M1)Pain modulationRandomized within-subject crossover trialReaction timeShamtDCS

Identifiers

PMID41380142
PMCPMC12994524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.