Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39915614›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Examining tolerability, safety, and blinding in 1032 transcranial electrical stimulation sessions for children and adolescents with neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Andrea Battisti, Giulia Lazzaro, Luciana Ursumando, Barbara D'Aiello, Valeria Zanna, Floriana Costanzo, Stefano Vicari, Deny Menghini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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 · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Andrea BattistiChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, 00146, Italy.
Giulia LazzaroChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, 00146, Italy.
Luciana UrsumandoChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, 00146, Italy.
Barbara D'AielloChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, 00146, Italy.
Valeria ZannaChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, 00146, Italy.
Floriana CostanzoChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, 00146, Italy.
Stefano VicariChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, 00146, Italy.
Deny MenghiniChild and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, 00146, Italy. deny.menghini@opbg.net.ORCID 0000-0002-3459-2601

Funding

Ministero della Salute GR-2018-12368336
6 · The paper itself

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

Mental DisordersNeurodevelopmental DisordersTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychiatryPaediatricTDCSTESTreatmentTRNS

Identifiers

PMID39915614
PMCPMC11802757

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.