SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Efficacy of transcranial electrical stimulation in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) is a prevalent condition associated with substantial disability and a marked reduction in quality of life. First‑line treatments, such as pharmacotherapy and physical therapy, often have limited effectiveness. This systematic review and meta‑analysis evaluated the efficacy of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) modalities, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), high‑definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD‑tDCS), and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), for the treatment of CNLBP. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across six electronic databases, and 19 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies evaluated conventional tDCS, two evaluated high‑definition tDCS, one evaluated high‑definition transcranial infraslow pink‑noise stimulation (HD‑tIPNS), and one evaluated tACS. Results: The pooled results showed that single‑session tDCS did not significantly reduce pain intensity compared with sham. However, when combined with physical or behavioral interventions, tDCS was associated with significant pain reduction. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in outcomes according to stimulation target, including the primary motor cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Discussion: Although tDCS showed promise as an adjunct for pain relief, its effects on functional disability and psychological outcomes were less conclusive. Further high‑quality studies are needed to optimize stimulation protocols and clarify the role of tDCS as an adjunct to other therapeutic approaches. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261298298, CRD420261298298.
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.