ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Diabetes: A Focused and Mechanistic Review of Symptom and Function Outcomes.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is being explored as an adjunct for diabetes-related symptoms grounded in diabetes-associated alterations in brain networks. We reviewed clinical trials of tDCS conducted in people with diabetes and summarized mechanistic findings relevant to metabolic control. Two reviewers searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Scopus, and ResearchGate for studies published from 1 January 2008 to 31 August 2025. Forty-one records were identified; after screening and full-text assessment, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Across predominantly middle-aged adults with long-standing type 2 diabetes, protocols were low-intensity and well-tolerated. The most consistent clinical benefit was analgesia with primary motor cortex stimulation, with randomized comparisons favoring active tDCS over sham. Dorsolateral prefrontal stimulation paired with working-memory training improved cognition and reduced anxiety, while combined motor-prefrontal courses yielded gains in sleep quality and health-related quality of life; a small, randomized study in proliferative diabetic retinopathy reported short-term visual improvements after occipital stimulation. Safety was favorable, and no serious adverse events were reported. Objective metabolic endpoints in diabetic cohorts were scarce; early evidence for insulin-independent improvements in glucose handling and neurometabolic shifts derives mainly from non-diabetic or mixed samples and remains hypothesis-generating. Overall, tDCS appears to be a promising, well-tolerated adjunct for diabetes-related complications. Larger, rigorously sham-controlled trials that align targets with clinical phenotypes and include standardized metabolic outcomes are needed.
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.