ReviewBrain sciences2026
Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation for Pain: Mixed Evidence and the Path to Precision Neuromodulation.
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuromodulation for Pain Management: Evidence of Safety and Efficacy.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Temporal Interference Stimulation of the Motor Cortex Produces Frequency-Dependent Analgesia.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) above individual peak alpha frequency (PAF) does not shift PAF or experimental pain sensitivity: an exploratory study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neural oscillations are fundamental to the integration of sensory, affective, and cognitive processes that contribute to pain perception. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) provides a valuable tool for investigating and modulating these oscillatory dynamics. In this review, we examine the effects of tACS on pain perception and pain-related oscillations in both healthy participants and individuals with chronic pain, highlighting methodological variability and mechanistic uncertainties that may contribute to mixed findings. We identified 14 studies, including 9 studies of experimental pain in healthy individuals and 5 of clinical pain disorders, comparing tACS to sham. Somatosensory alpha was the most frequently targeted oscillatory feature. Results varied considerably. Several studies reported reductions in pain, increases in alpha power, or changes in sensorimotor and prefrontal connectivity, but others showed no meaningful neural or behavioral effects. Out of the 14 studies, 6 demonstrated analgesic benefits and 2 showed improvements only under specific conditions or within subgroups, for a total of 8/14 studies with positive findings. Possible sources of heterogeneity include variation in stimulation duration, electrode montage, frequency alignment with individual rhythms, contextual state, and anatomical and neurophysiological differences across individuals. Pre-registered studies with sufficient power are needed to replicate effects within the most promising intervention protocols to establish a foundation in the field. We also recommend inclusion of brain imaging or electrophysiological recordings to verify whether stimulation effectively modulates the targeted neural oscillations. Finally, recent methodological advances, including phase-specific tACS, amplitude-modulated tACS, and individualized electric-field modeling, offer new opportunities to enhance mechanistic precision and clinical applicability. We argue that by integrating these approaches, future research can move beyond fixed, one-size-fits-all protocols toward personalized, state-dependent, closed-loop tACS approaches. Exploring these frontiers will transform tACS from an exploratory tool into a reliable intervention for pain.
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.