ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
A review on the reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that offers increased spatial precision compared to conventional tDCS. As its use has expanded across research and clinical settings, there has been increasing interest in understanding its safety and tolerability. Objective: This review summarizes adverse events related to HD-tDCS in both healthy and clinical populations, focusing on how stimulation intensity, session frequency, and polarity influence tolerability. Results: In healthy populations, HD-tDCS is most often administered at 1-2 mA for 20 min. The most reported adverse events include tingling, itching and burning localized to the site of stimulation, typically described as mild or transient. Studies comparing active and sham stimulation generally report no significant differences in adverse event frequency or intensity, even at higher intensities of 2-3 mA. Reports of severe adverse events are rare, and participant dropout due to discomfort is uncommon. Multi-session protocols show similar safety profiles, suggesting that repeated stimulation does not increase adverse effects. In clinical populations HD-tDCS is typically delivered across multiple sessions. Reported adverse events are mild and transient, with few reports of severe outcomes. Polarity-specific comparisons suggest that anodal and cathodal stimulation are similarly tolerated, with no notable differences in adverse event profiles. Conclusion: Overall, current evidence indicates that HD-tDCS is a safe and well-tolerated technique across diverse populations and stimulation parameters. Continued use of standardized adverse event reporting will be important to further confirm these findings as clinical application broaden.
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.