SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Biomarker use in predicting transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) response: a systematic scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Trans-cranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique with increasing evidence of efficacy in treating neuropsychiatric conditions. There is a need for biomarkers to predict and monitor tDCS efficacy. We aimed to conduct a systematic scoping review to assess the evidence regarding the ability of biomarkers to predict response to tDCS and identify promising candidate biomarkers in neuropsychiatric patient populations. Methods: Comprehensive searches were conducted in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases on 24/09/2023. Articles were screened at the title and abstract level and then at full text, and inclusion/exclusion criteria applies. Data was extracted and the quality of the studies assessed with the JADAD, MINORS and Ottawa rating scales. 154 including 154 studies in the review. Disorders studied weredivided into 10 categories, Stroke/Aphasia, Psychotic Disorders, Affective Disorders, Neurocognitive Disorders, Pain Disorders, Addiction Disorders, Disorders of Consciousness, Multiple Sclerosis, Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury. Biomarkers with positive results in at least 2 studies in each group were identified. Results: The most common biomarker across groups was functional connectivity, appearing in 7 of 10 groups. This was followed by EEG features and Cortical Activation. The biomarkers with most evidence have plausible mechanisms of action and have been previously proposed as candidate biomarkers in similar research. Other biomarkers included anatomical and clinical features, and levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. Conclusion: This review identified the most promising candidate biomarkers in predicting and monitoring tDCS response in neuropsychiatric disorders and this may provide a focus for future research. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/r6mkp/?view_only=64ec4811e21f43ba84fe31496f403ec2.
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.