Trial reportMolecular psychiatry2026
Optimized multichannel 4 mA vs conventional transcranial direct current stimulation for major depressive disorder: A randomized sham-controlled trial.
Trial report in Molecular psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06165445 (Optimized Multichannel tDCS Protocol vs Conventional and Sham tDCS for Clinical Use in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder), which is not on this 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.
Optimized Multichannel tDCS Protocol vs Conventional and Sham tDCS for Clinical Use in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major depressive disorder is a prevalent mental condition and the second most disabling disease. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), with advantages such as affordability, home-use application, and mild side effects, has been proposed for treating depression. Yet, its clinical efficacy is not established. Optimizing tDCS interventions for more effective and feasible clinical application is a need and topic of ongoing research. This randomized, sham‑controlled trial compares the efficacy of computationally optimized multichannel tDCS (4 mA), a less source-demanding alternative for personalized tDCS, vs conventional tDCS (2 mA) for treating unipolar depression. Seventy-one patients were randomly assigned to the optimized multichannel tDCS, conventional tDCS, and sham tDCS arms, of whom 60 provided endpoint data. In the optimized multichannel tDCS, electrical current was delivered via 7 small electrodes (max 1.65 mA per electrode; total injected current per polarity ≈ 4 mA [precisely 3.99 mA]) while in the conventional (2 mA per electrode) and sham tDCS, two 35 cm² sponge electrodes were used. Intervention efficacy and treatment response were evaluated before the intervention, at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 1- and 3-month post-intervention, and cognitive functions and brain connectivity changes were assessed before and after the intervention. Both active tDCS interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms compared to the sham group after the intervention. The optimized multichannel tDCS demonstrated earlier and stronger symptom alleviation than conventional tDCS. It additionally improved cognitive control and modulated functional connectivity markers associated with depression pathophysiology. The mean change in the primary clinical outcome from baseline to the study endpoint was 6.30 in the sham group and 13.50 and 21.50 in the conventional and multichannel tDCS groups, with corresponding response rate (≥50% symptom reduction) of 20% (4/20), 45% (9/20), and 75% (15/20), respectively. Blinding was unsuccessful only in the optimized multichannel arm, likely due to more intense stimulation-related sensations, however, this did not impact clinical outcomes. The optimized multichannel 4 mA tDCS shows clinical efficacy for treating depression, warranting further investigations in the future. Trial Registration Identifier: NCT06165445 / IRCT20210517051330N1.
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.