SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
The efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,864 participants. Outcomes encompassed core ADHD symptoms, hot and cold executive functions (EFs)-including inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility-as well as safety profiles based on adverse events. A multilevel meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were conducted to explore potential moderating factors. Results: Compared to sham stimulation, tDCS did not significantly improve core ADHD symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.01], p= 0.05). Similarly, no significant overall effects were observed for cold EFs: inhibitory control (Hedges' g(g)= -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.05], p=0.19), working memory (g= 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.32], p= 0.26), or cognitive flexibility (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.29], p= 0.24). The effect on hot EFs was also non-significant (g = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.70], p = 0.19). Exploratory analyses indicated that anode placement at Fp2 was associated with improvement in both inhibitory control (g= -0.52, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.11], p=0.01) and working memory (g = 0.72, 95% CI [0.22, 1.22], p = 0.004), although the overall test for interaction was not significant for inhibitory control (p= 0.19). The most common adverse reactions were mild and transient local skin symptoms, such as itching and redness (RR = 1.42, p=0.04). Conclusion: tDCS was well-tolerated but did not demonstrate significant overall efficacy for core ADHD symptoms or executive functions. Anodal stimulation at Fp2 showed potential selective benefits warranting further investigation. tDCS is not currently recommended as a standalone treatment for ADHD. Future research should optimize stimulation protocols and explore combined interventions with behavioral or cognitive therapies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024612055.
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.