SynthesisPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2026
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) on pain (considering the different types of pain measured) and function in adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). LITERATURE SURVEY: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud, and Science Direct were searched from inception to December 2023. Reference lists of selected trials and previously published and cited reviews were also examined. Results were restricted to randomized controlled trials on adults with knee OA, with TDCS as the primary intervention. Studies that included other knee issues or that compared TDCS with other therapies without a control group were excluded. METHODOLOGY: Study characteristics, such as author, year of publication, study design, intervention description, sample characteristics and outcomes, were described. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system were used to assess the individual and global risk of bias and quality of evidence. To analyze the effects of the interventions on clinical outcomes, a meta-analysis was performed. The outcomes included were self-reported pain and function, pain pressure threshold (PPT), and conditioned pain measure (CPM). Intervention comparisons were grouped as "active TDCS" and "sham TDCS". SYNTHESIS: A total of 1045 participants completed the interventions. The meta-analysis demonstrated significant improvement in self-reported pain intensity measured with the visual analogue scale or numerical rating scale (Cohen's d = -1.05 [95% CI, -1.40 to -0.70]), pain measured according to PPT (Cohen's d = -0.77 [95% CI, -1.45 to -0.09]) and function (Cohen's d = -0.29 [95% CI, -0.54 to -0.04]) with active TDCS as compared with sham TDCS. There was no difference in CPM between interventions.
conclusionsTDCS intervention alone or in combination with other techniques improves self-reported pain intensity (as measured by visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale, or PPT) and function in knee OA but has no impact on the endogenous pain inhibition system as measured with CPM.
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.