ReviewClinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology2026
Efficacy and Safety of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation Compared to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Treatment of Psychiatric & Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review of Head-to-head Trials.
Review in Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial direct and alternating current simulations (tDCS and tACS) are non-invasive neuromodulators with emerging evidence in neuropsychiatric disorders. This review compares their efficacy and tolerability in head-on trials. Following PRISMA guidelines, 955 studies were identified from Scopus, MEDLINE, and trial registries. After screening and reviewing abstracts and full texts by 2 independent authors, 11 studies comparing tACS and tDCS in neuropsychiatric disorders were included. Four studies in schizophrenia, 1 each in depression, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and ataxia; 2 in tinnitus and epilepsy. Sessions ranged from 1-10 delivering 1-2 mA, with most sessions lasting 20 minutes. tACS frequency varied from delta to high gamma, and were symptom specific. In psychiatric disorders, alpha-tACS was associated with improvements in auditory hallucinations, whereas tDCS showed relatively greater cognitive benefits. However, delta-high-definition-tACS was linked to improvements in cognitive deficits and general psychopathology, while theta-tACS fared better in depression. In neurological disorders, gamma-tACS was associated with improvement in MCI and epilepsy. In contrast, bifrontal-tDCS was associated with improvement in tinnitus, while cerebellar-tDCS significantly outperformed gamma-tACS in neurodegenerative ataxia. Most studies had some or major risk of bias. This review suggests both tACS and tDCS are safe and promising but vary in effectiveness across disorders. Different parameter spaces of these two techniques, especially the montage and stimulation frequency, would drive the outcomes. In view of single-session protocols, especially in neurological disorders, we need larger, replicable and rigorously designed studies to confirm differential superiority and guide clinical utility.
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.