ReviewThe European journal of neuroscience2026
A Verification Report of Three Meta-Analyses in Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation-Motor Learning Research.
Review in The European journal of neuroscience, 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.
- A Verification Report of Three Meta-Analyses in Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation-Motor Learning Research.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Review
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
With transcranial direct-current stimulation's (tDCS) popularity both in motor learning research and as a commercial product, it is important that the quality of evidence on its effectiveness be evaluated. Special attention should be paid to meta-analyses, as they usually have a large impact on research and clinical practice. The aim of this verification report was to gain insight on the methodological quality of meta-analyses estimating the effect of tDCS on motor learning. To that end, we verified the methodology of three meta-analyses with respect to reproducibility as the main focus, and reporting quality and publication bias control as secondary aspects. The three meta-analyses we verified largely adhered to PRISMA reporting guidelines and reported the primary effect sizes and sampling variances/confidence intervals they calculated, enabling successful reproductions of pooled effect size estimates. However, akin to previous meta-research with similar aims, we found the methods and results sections of the meta-analyses to be severely underreported, which compromises the ability to judge the soundness of the methodological procedure adopted as well as its reproducibility. While publication bias detection methods were applied, the approaches chosen do not allow for well informed decisions about the presence or extent of publication bias. These results reemphasise the need to transparently report methods in meta-analyses and to meticulously evaluate their quality before and after publication.
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.