SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation for disorders of consciousness: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis based on sham-controlled randomized trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may improve behavioral signs of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC), but evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and previous meta-analyses has remained inconsistent. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tDCS in patients with DoC and explored potential effect modifiers. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing active tDCS with sham stimulation. For crossover trials, only first-period data were extracted. The primary outcome was the change in Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) score. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled across studies. Subgroup analyses were performed according to baseline level of consciousness, etiology, disease duration, stimulation target, and total stimulation dose. Results: Fourteen trials including 330 patients were included. Active tDCS was associated with greater improvement in CRS-R change scores than sham stimulation (MD = 1.02, 95% CI 0.43-1.60; Conclusion: tDCS may improve the level of consciousness in patients with DoC, with no definite tDCS-related serious adverse events identified. Treatment response may differ by etiology, but this finding requires confirmation because multiple subgroup comparisons were performed. Systematic review registration: Identifier CRD420261370518.
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.