ArticleBMC neurology2026
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Chinese neurologists toward transcranial direct current stimulation.
Article in BMC neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of Chinese neurologists regarding transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and explore the interrelationships among these dimensions using path analysis.
methodsA multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in October 2022 across multiple hospitals in China.
resultsA total of 351 neurologists were included. Among the respondents, 170 (48.43%) were male and 181 (51.57%) were female. Most had access to tDCS equipment (91.17%). The mean scores (± SD) for knowledge, attitude, and practice were 6.42 ± 1.49 (out of 10), 20.97 ± 4.33 (out of 32), and 11.95 ± 3.43 (out of 20), respectively. There were weak positive correlations among knowledge, attitude, and practice scores, with a moderate correlation observed between attitude and practice (all P < 0.001). Path analysis showed that knowledge directly influenced attitude (β = 0.275, P = 0.019), which in turn directly impacted practice (β = 0.563, P = 0.012). Knowledge also indirectly affected practice through attitude (β = 0.155, P = 0.016), although it had no significant direct effect on practice (β = 0.044, P = 0.504).
conclusionsNeurologists in China show moderate knowledge and positive attitudes toward tDCS, but its clinical use remains limited. Attitude was independently associated with practice, while knowledge showed no independent direct association after adjustment. Knowledge may influence practice indirectly through shaping attitudes. These findings suggest that efforts to improve clinicians’ attitudes, alongside educational support, may be essential for facilitating the appropriate clinical adoption of tDCS and other emerging neuromodulation techniques.
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.