SynthesisBMC neurology2026
Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor and cognitive functions in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurological disorder affecting 2.8 million individuals worldwide, characterized by motor dysfunction and cognitive impairment that remain poorly addressed by pharmacological interventions alone. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has emerged as a promising non-invasive neuromodulation technique for symptom management in MS patients.
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in improving motor and cognitive functions in patients with MS, and to assess its safety profile.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Wiley Online Library, and Google Scholar databases. Studies were selected based on PICOS criteria, including randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies involving adults (≥ 18 years) with all types of MS receiving tDCS interventions. Methodological quality was assessed using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4.1 with random-effects models for outcomes with substantial heterogeneity and fixed-effects models where I
resultsTwenty-two studies published between 2015 and 2025 were included in this review. Meta-analysis revealed that tDCS significantly improved information processing speed (SDMT: MD = 7.71, 95% CI: 1.60-13.82, p = 0.01) and functional mobility (TUG: MD = -1.03 s, 95% CI: -2.08-0.02, p = 0.05). While individual studies showed improvements in gait speed and balance, pooled analyses for these outcomes did not reach statistical significance (gait speed: MD = 0.16 m/s, 95% CI: -0.07-0.38, p = 0.18; Berg Balance Scale: MD = 1.18, 95% CI: -2.03-4.39, p = 0.47). Qualitative analysis revealed consistent improvements in manual dexterity, working memory, executive function, and complex attention. Additionally, no serious adverse events were reported across studies; mild and transient side effects (e.g., tingling, itching) were noted, and completion rates were high (98% in studies that reported them).
conclusionThis systematic review provides preliminary evidence supporting tDCS as a potentially beneficial adjunctive intervention for MS patients, particularly for cognitive processing speed enhancement based on two small studies. While individual studies reported motor improvements, pooled meta-analyses for gait speed and balance failed to demonstrate statistical significance, indicating insufficient evidence for definitive motor benefits despite positive signals in individual trials. The substantial limitation of small study numbers per meta-analysis (2-6 studies), combined with limited MS subtype-specific data in most studies, significantly constrains confidence in these findings and limits assessment of external validity across different MS populations. Larger, standardized, multi-center randomized controlled trials with adequate subgroup representation and extended follow-up periods are essential to establish clinical significance and treatment durability.
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.