Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (930 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
A technique of brain electric stimulation therapy which uses constant, low current delivered via electrodes placed on various locations on the scalp.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: tDCS; Anodal Stimulation Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Anodal Stimulation tDCS; Anodal Stimulation tDCSs; Stimulation tDCS, Anodal; Stimulation tDCSs, Anodal; tDCS, Anodal Stimulation; tDCSs, Anodal Stimulation.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Electric Stimulation Therapy; Convulsive Therapy; Electroshock
- See also
- Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Related concepts
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 7,321 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 4,610 of them (63.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2020 onward with 4,610 records.
Reviews account for 1,493 records (20.4%) and meta-analyses for 525. Randomized controlled trials number 1,912 (26.1%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up a comparatively large share of this literature, which means many treatment questions have been tested directly.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 0 |
| 2010-2019 | 2,843 |
| 2020 onward | 4,610 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 1,493 | 20.4% |
| Meta-analyses | 525 | 7.2% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 1,912 | 26.1% |
Method: PubMed query "Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.
Reading the evidence in psychiatry and psychology
Research on mental health and behaviour relies on questionnaires, interviews and rating scales rather than physical measurements, so how a condition was defined and measured shapes every result. Many studies are observational or small, placebo responses can be large, and findings in one group or culture may not carry over to another. Nothing on this page is advice about diagnosis or treatment; anyone worried about their mental health should talk to a qualified clinician. Check how outcomes were measured, who took part and how long they were followed.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) | 2026 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 37 | cc by PMID 41622107 · DOI · PMC7618810 |
| Home-Based Gamma Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Patients With Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial | 2025 | Randomized controlled trial Design not recorded in structured metadata | 12 | cc by PMID 41359335 · DOI · PMC12687098 |
| Neuromodulation and neural networks in psychiatric disorders: current status and emerging prospects | 2025 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 12 | cc by PMID 40999798 · DOI · PMC12527521 |
Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- This guideline summarizes updated safety data (2017-2025) and provides expert recommendations on the use of low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) in humans.
- Closing excerpt
- We discuss recent regulatory and ethical issues.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (262 words)
This guideline summarizes updated safety data (2017-2025) and provides expert recommendations on the use of low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) in humans. tES encompasses several techniques including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), oscillatory transcranial direct current stimulation (otDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), transcranial temporal interference stimulation (tTIS), and their combinations or variations. Across over 300,000 sessions involving healthy individuals, patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, and other clinical populations, no tES-related serious adverse events (AEs) have been reported. Moderate AEs are rare and limited to a small range of specific applications. Mild AEs are common and include transient symptoms such as localized sensations (e.g., tingling or burning), headaches, and fatigue. Similar mild AEs are also reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The frequency, magnitude, and type of AEs are comparable across healthy, clinical, and vulnerable groups, including children, elderly, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application with EEG, TMS, or neuroimaging) have not shown increased safety risks. Safety is well-established for both bipolar and multichannel tES when applied up to 4 mA and up to 60 min per day. Higher intensities and longer stimulation durations may also be safe. Nevertheless, the number of studies using intensities above 4 mA or stimulating longer than 60 min is low. Home-based use of treatments is growing rapidly, leveraging remote supervision to provide patients with greater access and enable repeated, sustained dosing paradigms. We recommend using screening and AE questionnaires in future controlled studies, in particular when planning to extend the stimulation parameters applied. We discuss recent regulatory and ethical issues.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41622107 · DOI · PMC7618810
Home-Based Gamma Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Patients With Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ImportanceAlzheimer disease (AD) is characterized by dysregulated gamma brain oscillations.
- Closing excerpt
- gov Identifier: NCT05643326.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (441 words)
ImportanceAlzheimer disease (AD) is characterized by dysregulated gamma brain oscillations. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a novel, noninvasive brain stimulation technique capable of entraining cerebral oscillations at targeted frequencies.ObjectiveTo assess the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of home-based gamma tACS applied over the precuneus in patients with prodromal and mild AD.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial with an open-label extension phase was conducted at a tertiary AD research clinic in Italy from December 10, 2022, to October 15, 2024. Patients with a diagnosis of AD were eligible to participate.InterventionParticipants were randomized to receive either home-based gamma tACS (5 sessions/wk, 60 minutes each) or sham stimulation for 8 weeks (double-blind phase). All participants subsequently received gamma tACS for an additional 8 weeks (open-label phase) and an 8-week follow-up.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end points were safety, feasibility, and clinical efficacy. Secondary end points included measures of biological efficacy, including gamma band power via electroencephalography, cholinergic neurotransmission, AD plasma biomarker levels, and brain connectivity as assessed via magnetic resonance imaging.ResultsSixty consecutive patients with prodromal or mild AD were screened; 50 were randomized to gamma or sham tACS (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [7.8] years; 25 [50.0%] female and 25 [50.0%] male). Home-based gamma tACS was safe and well-tolerated. A significant enhancement in global cognitive functions, activities of daily living, and associative memory performances was observed. Marginal mean differences between the sham vs gamma tACS groups were significant for the Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes (0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-0.61; P = .007), Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (0.93; 95% CI, 0.50-1.36; P = .001), Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (-0.55; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.21; P = .02), and Face-Name Association Test (-1.14; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.61; P ≤ .001). During the open-label phase, a significant marginal mean difference was observed for Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (-0.59; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.16; P = .007), Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (0.41; 95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P = .02), and Face-Name Association Test (1.04; 95% CI, 0.50-1.57; P = .003). Neurophysiological measures showed an increase in cholinergic transmission, coinciding with an increase in gamma power following gamma tACS, effects not seen with sham stimulation. No changes of plasma biomarkers were observed. No add-on effect was observed after 2 repeated treatments with gamma tACS, suggesting that 8 rather than 16 weeks of treatment represents the ideal duration.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, home-based gamma tACS was feasible and improved clinical outcomes in AD, with neurophysiological evidence of brain engagement. These findings support further investigation of gamma tACS as a potential therapeutic intervention for AD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05643326.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41359335 · DOI · PMC12687098
Neuromodulation and neural networks in psychiatric disorders: current status and emerging prospects [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Psychiatric disorders lead to disability, premature mortality and economic burden, highlighting the urgent need for more effective treatments.
- Closing excerpt
- We finally explore future directions to improve treatment protocols and promote widespread clinical use of NIBS as a safe, effective and patient-centred treatment for psychiatric disorders.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (227 words)
Psychiatric disorders lead to disability, premature mortality and economic burden, highlighting the urgent need for more effective treatments. The understanding of psychiatric disorders as conditions of large-scale brain networks has created new opportunities for developing targeted, personalised, and mechanism-based therapeutic interventions. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), can directly modulate dysfunctional neural networks, enabling treatments tailored to the individual's unique functional network patterns.As NIBS techniques depend on our understanding of the neural networks involved in psychiatric disorders, this review offers a neural network-informed perspective on their applications. We focus on key disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, and examine the role of NIBS on cognitive impairment, a transdiagnostic feature that does not respond to conventional treatments. We discuss the advancements in identifying NIBS response biomarkers with the use of electrophysiology and neuroimaging, which can inform the development of optimised, mechanism-based, personalised NIBS treatment protocols.We address key challenges, including the need for more precise, individualised targeting of dysfunctional networks through integration of neurophysiological, neuroimaging and genetic data and the use of emerging techniques, such as low- intensity focused ultrasound, which has the potential to improve spatial precision and target access. We finally explore future directions to improve treatment protocols and promote widespread clinical use of NIBS as a safe, effective and patient-centred treatment for psychiatric disorders.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40999798 · DOI · PMC12527521
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders [4]
- Research article Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Section 4. Neurostimulation Treatments [5]
- Research article Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Working Memory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Findings From Healthy and Neuropsychiatric Populations [6]
- Research article Transcranial direct current stimulation for acute major depressive episodes: meta-analysis of individual patient data [7]
- Research article Comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-surgical brain stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis [9]
References
- Antal A, Bjekić J, Ganho-Ávila A, Alekseichuk I, Assecondi S, Bergmann TO, et al.. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN). . 2026. PMID 41622107 · DOI · PMC7618810
- Cantoni V, Casula EP, Tarantino B, Cupidi C, Huber N, Altomare D, et al.. Home-Based Gamma Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Patients With Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. . 2025. PMID 41359335 · DOI · PMC12687098
- Michalopoulou PG, Meshreky KM, Hommerich Z, Shergill SS. Neuromodulation and neural networks in psychiatric disorders: current status and emerging prospects. . 2025. PMID 40999798 · DOI · PMC12527521
- Fregni F, El-Hagrassy MM, Pacheco-Barrios K, Carvalho S, Leite J, Simis M, et al.. Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2021. PMID 32710772 · DOI · PMC8059493
- Milev RV, Giacobbe P, Kennedy SH, Blumberger DM, Daskalakis ZJ, Downar J, et al.. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Section 4. Neurostimulation Treatments. Can J Psychiatry. 2016. PMID 27486154 · DOI · PMC4994792
- Hill AT, Fitzgerald PB, Hoy KE. Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Working Memory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Findings From Healthy and Neuropsychiatric Populations. Brain Stimul. 2016. PMID 26597929 · DOI
- Brunoni AR, Moffa AH, Fregni F, Palm U, Padberg F, Blumberger DM, et al.. Transcranial direct current stimulation for acute major depressive episodes: meta-analysis of individual patient data. Br J Psychiatry. 2016. PMID 27056623 · DOI · PMC4887722
- Mutz J, Vipulananthan V, Carter B, Hurlemann R, Fu CHY, Young AH. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-surgical brain stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019. PMID 30917990 · DOI · PMC6435996
- Begemann MJ, Brand BA, Ćurčić-Blake B, Aleman A, Sommer IE. Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2020. PMID 33070785 · DOI · PMC7737055
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.