ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Sham tDCS controls: blinding, reliability, and a specification-grade checklist.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with rehabilitation training for chronic spinal pain: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is essential for causal inference but is commonly implemented as ramp-only protocols that may not ensure physiological inertness and may fail to maintain mid-session blinding. We synthesize evidence on sham blinding integrity and test-retest reliability from January 1, 2010, to August 31, 2024, with a targeted post-search update (September 2024-September 2025) for key methodological advances directly informing sham design, blinding assessment, or physiological inertness. Evidence across conventional fade-in/short-stimulation/fade-out (FSF) approaches and emerging HD and device-locked alternatives suggests that end-of-study "guess" measures frequently overestimate blinding, whereas time-resolved probes detect perceptual divergence during stimulation. Test-retest reliability under sham conditions is generally adequate across common behavioral tasks, although practice effects and procedural heterogeneity can reduce stability and inflate variance. Based on recurrent methodological failure factors identified in the mapped literature, we propose five specification-grade recommendations: (i) use time-resolved (not end-of-study) blinding assessment with pre-specified success criteria; (ii) constrain intracranial E-fields below a conservative engineering ceiling using accessible modeling tools; (iii) standardize ramp profiles and electrode preparation and impedance protocols; (iv) implement device-locked randomization with audit trails; and (v) preregister blinding thresholds and analysis plans. These practices operationalize sham quality as measurable outcomes that can reduce trial variability and strengthen cross-study synthesis in mechanistic and clinical research.
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.