ReviewIndian journal of psychological medicine2026
Efficacy of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS) for Treating Hallucinations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Indian journal of psychological medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose of the Review: Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a non-invasive technique that modulates brain oscillations and may help treat hallucinations when conventional treatments fail. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of tACS in reducing hallucinations in psychiatric disorders. Collection and Analysis of Data: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and clinical trial registries was conducted. Studies included adult psychiatric populations receiving tACS with hallucinations measured using standardized scales. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis, and five additional studies were synthesized qualitatively. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs, and the Joanna Briggs Institute tools for other designs, and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.Meta-analysis of three RCTs (72 participants) showed no significant difference between tACS and sham treatment in reducing hallucinations post-intervention (SMD = -0.14, 95% CI = -0.61 to 0.32) or at study endpoint (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.41 to 0.61). Qualitative findings suggested potential benefits with gamma-frequency (40 Hz) tACS for auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. Side effects were mild and infrequent. Overall risk of bias was moderate to high, and evidence certainty was low. Conclusions: Gamma-frequency tACS shows potential, but evidence remains inconclusive. Larger, well-designed trials are needed to determine its effectiveness for hallucinations in psychiatric disorders. Persistent auditory hallucinations pose treatment challenges in schizophrenia. Non-invasive brain stimulation such as TMS and tDCS has been found to offer some benefit for auditory hallucinations. However, the literature on the efficacy of tACS for auditory hallucinations has not been reviewed. This systematic review has synthesized all published studies and reported the pooled effect for efficacy and safety.
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.