Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating chronic pain – Preliminary results of open-label, self-administered, at-home treatment

Treister, Roi; Lang, Magdalena; Klein, Max M.; Oaklander, Ann Louise

doi:10.1016/j.jns.2015.08.851

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier studies have reported the opportunity to modulate the somatosensory system using tDCS, primarily studied in pain conditions [30,52,59]. It was hypothesised that the analgesic effect of anodal tDCS seen in chronic pain patients, would be reflected as underlying changes in the somatosensory detection and pain thresholds in healthy subjects.…”

Section: Effects Of Tdcs On the Somatosensory And Pain Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of anodal high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on the pain sensitivity in a healthy population: a double-blind, sham-controlled study

Kold

Graven‐Nielsen

2021

Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) of brain areas related to pain processing may provide analgesic effects evident in the sensory detection and pain thresholds.The somatosensory sensitivity was assessed following HD-tDCS targeting the primary motor cortex (M1) and/or the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Eighty-one (40 females) subjects were randomly assigned to one of four anodal HD-tDCS protocols (20 min) applied on three consecutive days: Sham-tDCS, DLPFC-tDCS, M1-tDCS, and DLPFC&M1-tDCS (simultaneous tDCS of DLPFC and M1). Subjects and experimenter were blinded to the tDCS protocols. The somatosensory sensitivity were assessed each day, before and after each tDCS by detection and pain thresholds to thermal and mechanical skin stimulation, vibration detection thresholds, and pressureby the International Association for the Study of Pain. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 2021 4 pain thresholds. Subjects were effectively blinded to the protocol, with no significant difference in rates of whether they received real or placebo tDCS between the four groups. Compared with the Sham-tDCS, none of the active HD-tDCS protocols caused significant changes in detection or pain thresholds. Independent of tDCS protocols, pain and detection thresholds except vibration detection were increased immediately after the first tDCS protocol compared with baseline (P <0.05).Overall, the active stimulation protocols were not able to induce significant modulation of the somatosensory thresholds in this healthy population compared to sham-tDCS. Unrelated to the HD-tDCS protocol a decreased sensitivity was found after the first intervention, indicating a placebo effect or possibly habituation to the QST assessments. These findings add to the increasing literature of null-findings in the modulatory effects of HD-tDCS on the healthy somatosensory system.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Tdcs On the Somatosensory And Pain Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of anodal high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on the pain sensitivity in a healthy population: a double-blind, sham-controlled study

Kold

Graven‐Nielsen

2021

Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a large proportion of studies (94.7%) demonstrated low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, with only one study identified as high risk of bias due to an increased number of participants who withdrew from the study [44]. Selective reporting was generally (68.4%) identified as an unclear level of bias [40, 42–44, 46–49, 51–55], with two studies identified as high risk of bias [38, 39], and one as low risk of bias [41] in this category. One study was identified as high risk of bias under the domain of other sources of bias due to substantial variation in duration and intensity of stimulation based on response to treatment [52].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies were performed with people who had Multiple Sclerosis (MS) [40, 47, 48, 54], two with Parkinson’s disease (PD) [38, 43] and two with stroke [41, 56]. Other populations included tinnitus [46], dementia [42], minimally conscious state [45], Mal de Debarquement syndrome [39], trigeminal neuralgia [44], neuropathic pain [55], depression [49], multimodal hallucinatory perceptions [53], schizophrenia [52], various neurological pain conditions [51] and a case series of four chronically ill patients which included myasthenia gravis, depression, chronic pain and stroke [50].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strategies to implement and monitor in-home transcranial electrical stimulation in neurological and psychiatric patient populations: a systematic review

Sandran

Hillier

2019

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Transcranial electrical stimulation is a promising technique to facilitate behavioural improvements in neurological and psychiatric populations. Recently there has been interest in remote delivery of stimulation within a participant’s home. Objective The purpose of this review is to identify strategies employed to implement and monitor in-home stimulation and identify whether these approaches are associated with protocol adherence, adverse events and patient perspectives. Methods MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, Emcare and PsycINFO databases and clinical trial registries were searched to identify studies which reported primary data for any type of transcranial electrical stimulation applied as a home-based treatment. Results Nineteen published studies from unique trials and ten on-going trials were included. For published data, internal validity was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool with most studies exhibiting a high level of bias possibly reflecting the preliminary nature of current work. Several different strategies were employed to prepare the participant, deliver and monitor the in-home transcranial electrical stimulation. The use of real time videoconferencing to monitor in-home transcranial electrical stimulation appeared to be associated with higher levels of compliance with the stimulation protocol and greater participant satisfaction. There were no severe adverse events associated with in-home stimulation. Conclusions Delivery of transcranial electrical stimulation within a person’s home offers many potential benefits and appears acceptable and safe provided appropriate preparation and monitoring is provided. Future in-home transcranial electrical stimulation studies should use real-time videoconferencing as one of the approaches to facilitate delivery of this potentially beneficial treatment.

show abstract

“…Another potential utility is the possibility of at-home treatment with tDCS in neurologic populations. [6][7][8][9] Ten, small, randomized, clinical ctDCS trials [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and several case reports indicate the potential for ctDCS to reduce seizure frequency in patients with medically refractory epilepsy. The largest studies that applied repeated sessions of ctDCS 12,14,19 demonstrated reduced seizure frequency for weeks after the stimulation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Personalized, Multisession, Multichannel Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Medication-Refractory Focal Epilepsy: An Open-Label Study

Kaye

San-Juan

Salvador³

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

have received compensation from Neuroelecrics Inc., manufacturers of the tested device. G. Ruffini is a shareholder of Neuroelectrics. R. Salvador, M. C. Biagi, and L. Dubreuil-Vall are employed by Neuroelectrics. A. Pascual-Leone serves on the scientific advisory boards for Starlab Neuroscience, Neuroelectrics, Magstim Inc., Nexstim, and Cognito and is listed as an inventor on several issued and pending patents on the real-time integration of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography and MRI. A. Rotenberg is cofounder and serves on the scientific advisory board of Neuromotion. He is also presently or has recently participated on the advisory boards of Epihunter, Gamify, Neurorex, and Roche. He has had research support from Brainsway, CRE Medical, Kintai, Neuroelectrics, Roche, Sage, and Takeda. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. H. L. Kaye and D. San-Juan contributed equally. Funding was provided by a grant from the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center and by Neuroelectrics.

show abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating chronic pain – Preliminary results of open-label, self-administered, at-home treatment

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Effect of anodal high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on the pain sensitivity in a healthy population: a double-blind, sham-controlled study

Effect of anodal high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on the pain sensitivity in a healthy population: a double-blind, sham-controlled study

Strategies to implement and monitor in-home transcranial electrical stimulation in neurological and psychiatric patient populations: a systematic review

Personalized, Multisession, Multichannel Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Medication-Refractory Focal Epilepsy: An Open-Label Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About