Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39606007›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024

Evaluation of tolerability and safety of transcranial electrical stimulation with gel particle electrodes in healthy subjects.

Chuangchuang Chang, Yi Piao, Mingsong Zhang, Yan Liu, Minglei Du, Miao Yang, Tianyuan Mei, Chengkai Wu, Yan Wang, Xueli Chen and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

12 authors.

Chuangchuang ChangApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Yi PiaoApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Mingsong ZhangApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Yan LiuApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Minglei DuSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Miao YangApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Tianyuan MeiApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Chengkai WuApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Yan WangDivision of Life Science and Medicine, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Xueli ChenDepartment of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Hefei National Research Center for Physical Sciences at the Microscale and School of Life Science, Division of Life Science and Medicine, University of Science & Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, China.
Ginger Qinghong ZengApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Xiaochu ZhangApplication Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: With the advancement of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) technology, an increasing number of stimulation devices and treatment protocols have emerged. However, safety and tolerability remain critical concerns before new strategies can be implemented. Particularly, the use of gel particle electrodes brings new challenges to the safety and tolerability of tES, which hinders its widespread adoption and further research. Objective: Our study utilized a specially designed and validated transcranial electrical stimulation stimulator along with preconfigured gel particle electrodes placed at F3 and F4 in the prefrontal lobes. We aimed to assess the tolerance and safety of these electrodes in healthy subjects by administering different durations and types of tES. Methods: Each participant underwent ten sessions of either transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), with session durations varying. In the experiment, we collected various measurement data from participants, including self-report questionnaire data and behavioral keystroke data. Tolerability was evaluated through adverse events (AEs), the relationship of adverse events with tES (AEs-rela), the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the Visual Analog Mood Scale-Revised (VAMS-R). Safety was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Skin Sensation Rating (SSR), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Stroop task. These data were analyzed to determine the impact of different parameters on the tolerability and safety of tES. Results: There were no significant changes in the results of the MoCA and SAS scales before and after the experiment. However, significant differences were observed in VAS, SSR, AEs, and AEs-rela between tDCS and tACS. Additionally, fatigue increased, and energy levels decreased on VAMS-R with longer durations. No significant differences were found in other neuropsychological tests. Conclusion: Our study revealed significant differences in tolerability and safety between tDCS and tACS, underscoring the importance of considering the stimulation type when evaluating these factors. Although tolerance and safety did not vary significantly across different stimulation durations in this study, future research may benefit from exploring shorter durations to further assess tolerability and safety efficiently.

Indexed as

gelsafetystimulation durationstimulation typetACStDCStolerability

Identifiers

PMID39606007
PMCPMC11599605

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.