Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37660936›Full record

ArticleBrain stimulation

Tolerability and blinding of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation among older adults at intensities of up to 4 mA per electrode.

Carine El Jamal, Ashley Harrie, Annalise Rahman-Filipiak, Alexandru D Iordan, Alexandre F DaSilva, Robert Ploutz-Snyder, Lara Khadr, Michael Vesia, Marom Bikson, Benjamin M Hampstead

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. High-definition tDCS over primary motor cortex modulates brain signal variability and functional connectivity in episodic migraine.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Trial
  3. 2 mA is NOT 2 mA: Electric field variability in high-definition tDCS and its implications for precision neuromodulation in aging.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carine El JamalResearch Program on Cognition and Neuromodulation Based Interventions, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ashley HarrieResearch Program on Cognition and Neuromodulation Based Interventions, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Annalise Rahman-FilipiakResearch Program on Cognition and Neuromodulation Based Interventions, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Alexandru D IordanResearch Program on Cognition and Neuromodulation Based Interventions, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Alexandre F DaSilvaHeadache & Orofacial Pain Effort (H.O.P.E.), Biologic & Materials Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Robert Ploutz-SnyderApplied Biostatistics Laboratory, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Lara KhadrApplied Biostatistics Laboratory, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michael VesiaBrain Behavior Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Marom BiksonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Benjamin M HampsteadResearch Program on Cognition and Neuromodulation Based Interventions, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Mental Health Service, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: bhampste@med.umich.edu.
University of Michigan · USCity College of New York · US

Funding

Using social networks to map and evaluate team science across CTSA hubsUL1TR001427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MITCHELL, DUANE A. · 2015 to 2024
$37.2M
UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Hazel B Nichols · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
The Goizueta Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG066511 · NIA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI ALLAN I LEVEY · 2020 to 2026
$29.0M
THREE DIMENSIONAL VORTEX LIKE REENTRY IN CORONARY PERFUSED VENTRICULAR WALLP01HL039707 · NHLBI · UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY · PI TAFFET, STEVEN M · 1990 to 2010
$19.0M
P3: Biophysical Mechanisms in two Arhythmogenic DiseasesP01HL087226 · NHLBI · UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY · PI JALIFE, JOSE S · 2007 to 2012
$10.3M
Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Core CenterP30AG053760 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LIEBERMAN, ANDREW P · 2016 to 2020
$10.1M
Treating mild cognitive impairment with transcranial direct current stimulationR01AG058724 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HAMPSTEAD, BENJAMIN MICHAEL · 2018 to 2022
$8.4M
G-RISE: Graduate Research Initiative for Student Advancement at The City College of New YorkT32GM136499 · NIGMS · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI RUTH E. STARK · 2020 to 2026
$4.9M
Investigation and Modulation of the Central Mu-Opioid Mechanism in Migraine (in vivo)R01NS094413 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ALEXANDRE DASILVA · 2015 to 2026
$4.3M
Research Program on Cognition and Neuromodulation Based Interventions (RP-CNBI)R35AG072262 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HAMPSTEAD, BENJAMIN MICHAEL · 2021 to 2025
$4.2M
Explosive Synchronization of Brain Network Activity in Chronic PainR01AT010060 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DASILVA, ALEXANDRE, HARRIS, RICHARD E · 2019 to 2023
$3.6M
Complexity: Innovations in Promoting Health through Team ScienceT32NR016914 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARJORIE E MCCULLAGH · 2017 to 2026
$3.5M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW009883NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001427NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT006978NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT010060NCI NIH HHS R01 CA102667NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL039707NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL087226NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI098511NIA NIH HHS P30 AG053760NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066511NIA NIH HHS R01 AG058724NIA NIH HHS R35 AG072262NIDA NIH HHS UG3 DA048502NIDDK NIH HHS R21 DK063179NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM136499NIGMS NIH HHS T34 GM137858NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS094413NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS101362NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS112996NINR NIH HHS T32 NR016914RRD VA I01 RX001534
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew studies have investigated tolerability, blinding, and double-blinding of High-Definition transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HD-tDCS) at amplitudes above 2 milliamps (mA).

objectiveWe examined a) tolerability of HD-tDCS during stimulation sessions and b) blinding and double blinding of participants and study team members.

methodsData from a mixed neurologic sample of 292 older adults were pooled from 3046 HD-tDCS sessions (2329 active; 717 sham). Per electrode amplitudes ranged from 1 mA to 4 mA with total currents up to 10 mA. Participants completed a standardized sensation (tolerability) questionnaire after each session. Participants and study team members stated whether the participant received active or sham stimulation at the end of various sessions. Data were collapsed into the presence/absence of a symptom due to low rates of positive responding and were analyzed for both differences and bioequivalency.

resultsThere were no safety-related adverse events. HD-tDCS was well tolerated with mostly no ("none") or "mild" sensations reported across sessions, regardless of active or sham condition and in both stimulation naïve and experienced participants. There were no significant differences in side effects between active and sham, with some achieving bioequivalence. Tingling and itching were significantly more common after lower (<2 mA) than higher (≥3 mA) amplitude active sessions, while skin redness was significantly more common after higher amplitudes. Blinding was effective at the participant and study team levels.

conclusionsHD-tDCS was well tolerated with center electrode amplitudes up to 4 mA. The bimodal ramp-up/down format of the sham was effective for blinding. These results support higher scalp-based amplitudes that enable greater brain-based current intensities in older adults.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAgedBrainElectrodesHumansPruritusScalpBlindDouble-blindHD-tDCSSafetyShamTolerability

Identifiers

PMID37660936
PMCPMC11218548
OpenAlexW4386374394

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.