Trial reportPloS one2026
Transcranial direct current stimulation in affecting neuropsychiatric symptoms of post-COVID syndrome: No change in microstates and functional connectivity.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
introductionNeuropsychiatric symptoms of post-covid syndrome (PCS) involve fatigue, brain fog, cognitive impairment, or symptoms of depression and anxiety. These symptoms are in other diagnoses associated with electroencephalography (EEG) changes in microstates and functional connectivity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is effective in alleviating certain abovementioned symptoms in other diagnoses. The main objective was to evaluate EEG changes in PCS patients after tDCS intervention.
methodsA randomised control trial (registered in ISRCTN database, No.: ISRCTN10942585) with 35 participants (n = 33 received the intervention) involved 20 applications (over four weeks) of tDCS (anode over F3, cathode over F4, duration 30 min, intensity 2mA). Participants were divided into active (n = 16) and sham (n = 17) groups. Resting-state EEG was measured at baseline, after two weeks (T1), and after the intervention (four weeks, T2) as an exploratory endpoint. Microstates and functional connectivity between F3 and F4 were analysed; differences between active and sham groups in change from baseline to T1 and from baseline to T2 were evaluated.
resultsEEG measurements from 26 participants (n = 13 for active and n = 13 for sham group) were included into the statistical analysis. No significant results were found. No serious adverse events were noted.
conclusionsWe did not find a significant difference in selected EEG parameters between active and sham groups. The possible reasons include choice of tDCS parameters (electrode montage or stimulation duration), and EEG variables selected for evaluation (microstates and functional connectivity). These results are in line with the results of cognitive and clinical assessment. However, the EEG endpoints were exploratory and the study was primarily powered for clinical results, therefore small effects cannot be excluded due to limited statistical power.
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.