ArticleScientific reports2025
Examining tolerability, safety, and blinding in 1032 transcranial electrical stimulation sessions for children and adolescents with neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Safety and Efficacy of Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation in Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Integrated Interventions for Executive Function Deficits in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: From Cognitive Training to Neuroregulation.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Review
- Fostering inclusion in clinical and research procedures in autistic youth through augmentative and alternative communication: a narrative review and a proposal for visual aids application in brain stimulation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Neuromodulation of Working Memory: Mechanisms, Targets, and Behavioral Outcomes.Neuroscience insights · 2026Review
- Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa-Interim Results from an Ongoing, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study first extensively evaluated the tolerability, safety, and blinding of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) in paediatric clinical populations, composed of 92 children and adolescents (54 females, age range: 8-17 years), involving 1032 sessions across neuropsychiatric (i.e., anorexia nervosa) and neurodevelopmental (i.e., attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, developmental dyscalculia) conditions. It compared adverse events (AEs) occurrence between active and sham transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) conditions (i.e., 528 active vs. 504 sham sessions) as well as tDCS and tRNS (i.e., 772 tDCS sessions vs. 260 tRNS sessions), while considering demographic and emotional-behavioural factors. Results showed tES safety with no "moderate" or "severe" AEs reported; about 77% of sessions were AE-free, supporting tES use in these populations. Itching was the most common symptom, and active sessions were found to be more likely to induce AEs compared to sham sessions. Notably, tRNS had a higher AE likelihood than tDCS, possibly due to experimental differences. In the current study, demographic and emotional-behavioural variables did not significantly affect AEs. Blinding procedures were moderately effective, with about half of participants correctly identifying their condition. As indicated in prior studies, tRNS seems to better preserve blinding integrity. In conclusion, this study provides comprehensive insights into tES tolerability and safety in paediatric clinical populations, emphasizing the need for further AEs exploration in tES and blinding procedure refinement in future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.