SynthesisAlpha psychiatry2026
Efficacy of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder and the Role of Intensity: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Alpha psychiatry, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD) are limited by efficacy and adverse effects. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) has emerged as a promising alternative. However, there is still a lack of systematic evaluation of its effectiveness. Recent studies suggest that currents greater than 7 milliamperes (mA) may be necessary to significantly alter potentials in deep brain regions associated with depression. We conducted a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis to assess the overall efficacy and safety of tACS for MDD and to explore potential associations regarding current intensity by comparing high-intensity tACS (HI-tACS) and low-intensity tACS (LI-tACS) protocols. Methods: A systematic search of Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP was conducted from inception to January 5, 2026. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model, assessing changes in depressive scale scores, response and remission rates, discontinuation, and adverse events. Results: Randomized controlled trials with 438 participants were included. Compared to sham stimulation, active tACS was associated with a significant reduction in depressive symptoms (moderate effect size). In an exploratory subgroup analysis, HI-tACS was associated with a larger effect size (large effect) than LI-tACS (small effect), with lower heterogeneity observed within subgroups. The HI-tACS group also showed significantly higher response and remission rates. No significant differences in adverse events or treatment discontinuations were observed between the two subgroups. Conclusions: Our results suggest that tACS may be a potentially effective treatment for MDD. Data from exploratory subgroup analyses provide preliminary, hypothesis-generating evidence that higher intensity may be associated with improved outcomes. However, given the limited evidence base and substantial heterogeneity, as well as the fact that intensity co-varied with stimulation frequency and other parameters in the included trials, these findings do not establish a sole causal link for intensity. Future large-scale, controlled, multi-arm trials are needed to disentangle these factors and confirm these preliminary observations. The PROSPERO Registration: The study has been registered on https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (registration number: CRD42024589889; registration link: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024589889).
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.