Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459499›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

Assessing adverse effects and unspecific effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS).

Hongyan Zhao, Ulrike Horn, Melanie Freund, Anna Bujanow, Christopher Gundlach, Gesa Hartwigsen, Falk Eippert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hongyan ZhaoMax Planck Research Group Pain Perception, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5454-2759
Ulrike HornMax Planck Research Group Pain Perception, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9119-0468
Melanie FreundMax Planck Research Group Pain Perception, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Anna BujanowMethods and Development Group Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Christopher GundlachExperimental Psychology and Methods, Wilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4135-0715
Gesa HartwigsenCognitive and Biological Psychology, Wilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8084-1330
Falk EippertMax Planck Research Group Pain Perception, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3986-1719

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is a relatively recent method for non-invasively modulating neural activity in the spinal cord. Despite its growing prominence, comprehensive studies addressing its potential adverse effects (AEs) and unspecific effects (UEs) are lacking. In this study, we conducted a systematic investigation of the potential AEs and UEs of tsDCS in healthy volunteers (N=20) who underwent a double-blind within-participant design, employing anodal, cathodal, and sham tsDCS of the thoracolumbar spinal cord. Our approach involved utilizing a newly developed structured questionnaire (to assess subjectively reported AEs) in combination with tsDCS-concurrent recording of skin conductance, cardiac and respiratory activity (to assess UEs in bodily state). The most frequent participant-reported AEs were sensations of burning, tingling, and itching, although they were largely described as mild; skin redness (experimenter-reported) occurred even more frequently. Importantly, when comparing AEs between active and sham tsDCS via frequentist and Bayesian analysis approaches, the results were largely in favour of no difference between conditions (with the exception of skin redness). A similar picture emerged for most UE metrics, suggesting that tsDCS does not induce changes in bodily state, at least as measured by our autonomic nervous system metrics. We believe that the strategy employed here could serve as a starting point for a systematic AE and UE assessment in clinical populations, longitudinal designs, and when targeting different spinal sites. Taken together, our results contribute to assessing the tolerability and specificity of tsDCS, in order to further the application of this spinal neuromodulation method in health and disease.

Indexed as

adverse effectsautonomic nervous systemspinal cordstructured questionnairetranscutaneous spinal direct current stimulationunspecific effects

Identifiers

PMID42459499
PMCPMC13370751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.