Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-gsnzm Total loading time: 1.54 Render date: 2022-09-25T06:35:45.095Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The efficacy of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2022

Ying-Chih Cheng
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, China Medical University Hsinchu Hospital, China Medical University, Hsinchu, Taiwan Department of Public Health and Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan Research Center of Big Data and Meta-Analysis, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
Po-Hsiu Kuo
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health and Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
Min-I Su
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Taitung MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taitung, Taiwan Department of Medicine, MacKay Medical College, New Taipei City, Taiwan
Wei-Lieh Huang*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Yunlin, Taiwan Department of Psychiatry, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan Cerebellar Research Center, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Yunlin, Taiwan
*
Author for correspondence: Wei-Lieh Huang, E-mail: Y03046@ms1.ylh.gov.tw, weiliehhuang@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation (NINCEN) on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance are inconsistent in different studies. Previous meta-analyses on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cerebral electrotherapy stimulation (CES) suggested that these methods are effective on depression. However, not all types of NINECN were included; results on anxiety and sleep disturbance were lacking and the influence of different populations and treatment parameters was not completely analyzed. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, PsycArticles and CINAHL before March 2021 and included published randomized clinical trials of all types of NINCEN for symptoms of depression, anxiety and sleep in clinical and non-clinical populations. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The main outcome was change in the severity of depressive symptoms after NINCEN treatment. A total of 58 studies on NINCEN were included in the meta-analysis. Active tDCS showed a significant effect on depressive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.544), anxiety (Hedges' g = 0.667) and response rate (odds ratio = 1.9594) compared to sham control. CES also had a significant effect on depression (Hedges' g = 0.654) and anxiety (Hedges' g = 0.711). For all types of NINCEN, active stimulation was significantly effective on depression, anxiety, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, total sleep time, etc. Our results showed that tDCS has significant effects on both depression and anxiety and that these effects are robust for different populations and treatment parameters. The rational expectation of the tDCS effect is ‘response’ rather than ‘remission’. CES also is effective for depression and anxiety, especially in patients with disorders of low severity.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

The effects of neuromodulation on psychiatric problems have been investigated for a long time (Woods et al., Reference Woods, Antal, Bikson, Boggio, Brunoni, Celnik and Nitsche2016). For classifying the techniques of neuromodulation, various concepts can be considered: the distinct forms of energy [electrical and magnetic, with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) belonging to the latter], whether surgical implantation of the stimulator is needed [deep brain stimulation (DBS) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) both need an invasive operation] and whether selectivity of brain regions exists [electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an example of non-selective stimulation] (Lewis, Thomson, Rosenfeld, & Fitzgerald, Reference Lewis, Thomson, Rosenfeld and Fitzgerald2016). ECT is an effective option for treatment-refractory psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia, mania and depression; DBS was investigated more for neurological disorders than psychiatric disorders; VNS was considered to be a treatment option for depression (Ali, Mathur, Malhotra, & Braga, Reference Ali, Mathur, Malhotra and Braga2019; Bottomley, LeReun, Diamantopoulos, Mitchell, & Gaynes, Reference Bottomley, LeReun, Diamantopoulos, Mitchell and Gaynes2019; Sharma, Sengupta, Chitnis, & Amara, Reference Sharma, Sengupta, Chitnis and Amara2018). rTMS was found to have a good effect on treatment-resistant depression but its cost is usually high (Dell'Osso, Priori, & Altamura, Reference Dell'Osso, Priori and Altamura2011; De Risio et al., Reference De Risio, Borgi, Pettorruso, Miuli, Ottomana, Sociali and Zoratto2020; Li, Cui, Li, Liu, & Chen, Reference Li, Cui, Li, Liu and Chen2021; Zhao et al., Reference Zhao, Tor, Khoo, Teng, Lim and Mok2018). Beyond the above options, there are still several types of non-invasive electrical stimulation; these therapies are usually less expensive and have relatively high accessibility, thus becoming the favored choices for those patients who do not want to receive pharmacotherapy (Dell'Osso et al., Reference Dell'Osso, Priori and Altamura2011; Sauvaget et al., Reference Sauvaget, Tostivint, Etcheverrigaray, Pichot, Dert, Schirr-Bonnais and Riche2019). In this article, we have named this group of therapies ‘non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation (NINCEN)’.

The different types of NINCEN in the literature are listed in Table 1. These therapies can be briefly classified according to the regions of stimuli and the waveforms (Guleyupoglu, Schestatsky, Edwards, Fregni, & Bikson, Reference Guleyupoglu, Schestatsky, Edwards, Fregni and Bikson2013). Among them, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cerebral electrotherapy stimulation (CES) are the most frequently mentioned in the public and academic field. CES was developed several decades ago; its form of stimulus is an alternative current of fixed frequency and the electrodes are often placed on the earlobe or forehead (Kavirajan, Lueck, & Chuang, Reference Kavirajan, Lueck and Chuang2014). The form of stimulus for tDCS is a direct current; electrodes can be put in several regions but the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is the most common target brain region in the literature (Mehrsafar, Rosa, Zadeh, & Gazerani, Reference Mehrsafar, Rosa, Zadeh and Gazerani2020; Wolkenstein, Zeiller, Kanske, & Plewnia, Reference Wolkenstein, Zeiller, Kanske and Plewnia2014). Among other treatment options, transcranial alternating current stimulation, transcranial random noise stimulation (these two treatments are similar to tDCS in their current ranges and electrode placement but their waveforms are distinct) and percutaneous mastoid electrical stimulation are focused on the stimulation of the central nervous system with different waveforms; transcutaneous VNS and trigeminal nerve stimulation are techniques that stimulate the peripheral nervous system (the targeted areas of these two treatments are the cranial nerves) (Generoso et al., Reference Generoso, Taiar, Garrocini, Bernardon, Cordeiro, Uchida and Shiozawa2019; Guleyupoglu et al., Reference Guleyupoglu, Schestatsky, Edwards, Fregni and Bikson2013; Hein et al., Reference Hein, Nowak, Kiess, Biermann, Bayerlein, Kornhuber and Kraus2013; Lu et al., Reference Lu, He, Zhang, Wang, Zhang, Dong and Yang2020; Reed & Cohen Kadosh, Reference Reed and Cohen Kadosh2018; Shiozawa, da Silva, Netto, Taiar, & Cordeiro, Reference Shiozawa, da Silva, Netto, Taiar and Cordeiro2015). The effects of these therapies have been widely investigated on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance in the psychiatric field (Kosari, Dadashi, Maghbouli, & Mostafavi, Reference Kosari, Dadashi, Maghbouli and Mostafavi2019; Lin et al., Reference Lin, Chang, Huang, Tzeng, Kao and Chang2021; Morriss, Xydopoulos, Craven, Price, & Fordham, Reference Morriss, Xydopoulos, Craven, Price and Fordham2019; Taremian, Nazari, Moradveisi, & Moloodi, Reference Taremian, Nazari, Moradveisi and Moloodi2019; Wagenseil, Garcia, Suvorov, Fietze, & Penzel, Reference Wagenseil, Garcia, Suvorov, Fietze and Penzel2018; Yennurajalingam et al., Reference Yennurajalingam, Kang, Hwu, Padhye, Masino, Dibaj and Bruera2018; Zanardi et al., Reference Zanardi, Poletti, Prestifilippo, Attanasio, Barbini and Colombo2020; Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Yu, Yu, Zhang, Liu, Hu and Zhou2020). Depression and anxiety are highly comorbid psychiatric conditions; furthermore, sleep disturbance is one of the common presentations of depression/anxiety. Therefore, these conditions may have shared mechanisms and thus could benefit from similar treatment options such as NINCEN.

Table 1. Comparison of different types of electrical neuromodulation

CNS, central nervous system; PNS, peripheral nervous system; EU EMA, European Union European Medicines Agency; US FDA, United States Food and Drug Administration.

In recent decades, large and well-designed randomized controlled trials on NINCEN have emerged, the most common being those adopting tDCS, followed by CES (Blumberger, Tran, Fitzgerald, Hoy, & Daskalakis, Reference Blumberger, Tran, Fitzgerald, Hoy and Daskalakis2012; Brunoni et al., Reference Brunoni, Boggio, De Raedt, Bensenor, Lotufo, Namur and Vanderhasselt2014; Loo et al., Reference Loo, Husain, McDonald, Aaronson, O'Reardon and Alonzo2018; Padberg et al., Reference Padberg, Kumpf, Mansmann, Palm, Plewnia, Langguth and Bajbouj2017; Palm et al., Reference Palm, Schiller, Fintescu, Obermeier, Keeser, Reisinger and Padberg2012; Sharafi, Taghva, Arbabi, Dadarkhah, & Ghaderi, Reference Sharafi, Taghva, Arbabi, Dadarkhah and Ghaderi2019). Most of these studies revealed that NINCEN is safe but the efficacies in distinct studies were discrepant (Barclay & Barclay, Reference Barclay and Barclay2014; Chan et al., Reference Chan, Alonzo, Martin, Mitchell, Sachdev and Loo2013; Loo et al., Reference Loo, Sachdev, Martin, Pigot, Alonzo, Malhi and Mitchell2010; Padberg et al., Reference Padberg, Kumpf, Mansmann, Palm, Plewnia, Langguth and Bajbouj2017; Sampaio-Junior et al., Reference Sampaio-Junior, Tortella, Borrione, Moffa, Machado-Vieira, Cretaz and Brunoni2018). There have been meta-analyses with larger sample sizes to support the efficacy of CES and tDCS on depression (Price, Briley, Haltiwanger, & Hitching, Reference Price, Briley, Haltiwanger and Hitching2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Lam, Peng, Zhang, Zhang, Huang and Lee2021). These meta-analyses provided important clinical insights but we noticed several unsolved issues. First, these meta-analyses are focused on the treatment of depression; data on anxiety and sleep disturbance were not included (Price et al., Reference Price, Briley, Haltiwanger and Hitching2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Lam, Peng, Zhang, Zhang, Huang and Lee2021). Second, NINCEN studies are heterogeneous in their included subjects and treatment parameters. For example, when recruiting patients with mild depression and patients with treatment-resistant depression, the clinical meaning is quite distinct (Li et al., Reference Li, Du, Chu, Liao, Pan, Li and Hung2019b; Meron, Hedger, Garner, & Baldwin, Reference Meron, Hedger, Garner and Baldwin2015; Mutz, Edgcumbe, Brunoni, & Fu, Reference Mutz, Edgcumbe, Brunoni and Fu2018). Therefore, we consider that the influence of patients' subpopulations, measurements and treatment settings should be managed with subgroup analyses for better interpretation of the results. Furthermore, the above concepts are ‘across different techniques’, so the integration of data on different types of NINCEN becomes possible (Guleyupoglu et al., Reference Guleyupoglu, Schestatsky, Edwards, Fregni and Bikson2013; Reed & Cohen Kadosh, Reference Reed and Cohen Kadosh2018). We believe that adding the above analyses could provide more understanding of the clinical meanings of NINCEN.

The present meta-analysis was designed based on the above background information. All types of NINCEN were included in this study. Depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance are continuous problems in clinical and non-clinical populations, so the two populations were both included. There are several major aims in this analysis: to analyze the effects of tDCS and CES on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance and to investigate the effects of all types of NINCEN on these psychiatric problems; and to estimate the influence of demographic data and treatment parameters on the analytical results using meta-regression.

Methods

Data sources and search strategy

This systematic review and meta-analysis was prepared according to the PRISMA statement guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman2009). We conducted an electronic literature search of PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, PsycArticles and CINAHL from the earliest available date of their inception to March 2021 and used the search string presented in the online Supplementary material. The literature search was conducted by three researchers independently (Y-C Cheng, M-I Su and W-L Huang). All titles meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved and reviewed in full text. Original studies investigating the effect of NINCEN on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance were eligible for review. Additional eligible studies were sought by searching the reference lists from primary articles and relevant reviews to identify any further studies that were not found with the electronic search. The protocol for this study was registered with PROSPERO (ID No. CRD42021227132).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We aimed to determine the effects of NINCEN on symptoms of depression, anxiety and sleep in all clinical and non-clinical populations. Eligible studies were those in which: (1) human randomized clinical trials used various types of NINCEN and intended to measure the mean changes of mood and sleep symptoms at baseline and at the end of the intervention; (2) active NINCEN and sham stimulation were conducted in two parallel groups; and (3) sufficient data were provided for obtaining the mean and standard deviation (s.d.).

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two investigators (Y-C Cheng and M-I Su) independently extracted relevant information from the included studies and evaluated the methodological quality of eligible trials using the Cochrane Collaboration assessment tool to assess the risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third investigator (W-L Huang).

The following data on studies were obtained: the last name of the first author, publication year, study population, type of NINCEN device, concomitant psychotropic agent (including antidepressants, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants) use or not, number of participants receiving active and sham stimulation, age, number of females, electrode position, electrode size, stimulation parameter and outcome measurement; some data were further analyzed using subgroup analyses or meta-regressions.

Efficacy outcomes

Our primary outcome was the change in depressive symptoms before and after active and sham treatment using any clinically validated rating scale. The means and standard deviations of changes from baseline were extracted. For depressive symptoms measured by more than one standardized rating scale, we used a predefined hierarchy. When the measurement was reported at multiple time points, we only extracted the data from the baseline and at the longest time point. When different stimulation parameters of the same NINCEN were used within a trial, a weighted average of the change and a pooled estimate of the variance were used to summarize the data. Because the efficacy of NINCEN on clinical and non-clinical populations may be different, we separated the subjects' severity of depression into several groups: mild depression, moderate depression (both based on cutoffs of the questionnaires) and major depressive disorder (based on diagnostic criteria) (Apaydin et al., Reference Apaydin, Maher, Shanman, Booth, Miles, Sorbero and Hempel2016). This issue was then managed in the subgroup analyses.

Secondary outcomes included anxiety (measured by the mean change of anxiety scale), sleep (measured by the mean change of sleep measurement), a response rate of depressive symptoms (estimated as the proportion of patients who achieved a reduction of 50% or more in the depression rating score) and depression remission rate (measured by the proportion of patients who had a depression score under the remission cut-off). For the studies in which relevant data were missing, the study authors were contacted to request the necessary information. The analyses regarding depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance were performed separately.

Statistical analysis

We estimated the relative treatment effects of the competing interventions by using standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) for continuous outcomes and the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals. Hedges' g was also calculated for the post-intervention score change between the active and sham groups. A positive effect size indicated superior effects of the intervention v. the sham groups. Heterogeneity was performed using the I 2 test (Higgins & Thompson, Reference Higgins and Thompson2002). A random-effects model was used to show that the true effect size could vary among studies and thus offer more generalizable results. Publication bias was examined using a funnel plot and also Egger's regression test (Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider, & Minder, Reference Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider and Minder1997). Subgroup analysis was stratified based on the severity of depression, specific depression measurements and stimulation parameters (current, electrode placement, number of treatment sessions). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed by the sequential exclusion of one trial at a time to examine whether the pooled effects remained robust. We also performed meta-regressions across the study to estimate the effects of some continuous variables on the results. The purposes of sensitivity analysis and meta-regressions were different: the heterogeneity from one specific study was managed from the sensitivity analysis whereas the continuous variables across the studies were analyzed using meta-regression. All meta-analytic computations were performed with R software (using meta package version 3.5.2).

Results

Baseline characteristics of included studies

Figure 1 summarizes the review flowchart in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Of the 1616 references screened, 65 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and 58 studies were entered for quantitative analysis. In quantitative analysis, a total of 2686 participants were included. The mean age of the participants was 43.23 years (range 12–71.94 years) and the median female proportion was 52.53% (range 0–100%). The sample size ranged from 16 to 256. The mean number of treatment sessions with NINCEN was 17.4 (range 5–180). The characteristics of the included participants are summarized in online Supplementary Table S1. The results of the quality assessment on the included trials in our meta-analysis using the Cochrane Collaboration tool are presented in online Supplementary Figs S1 and S2.

Fig. 1. PRISMA flowchart of included studies.

Pooled effects of tDCS on depression and anxiety

Meta-analysis examining the active tDCS group showed a significant effect on depressive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.544, p < 0.0001) (Fig. 2a). Regarding secondary study outcomes, the active tDCS group showed a significant effect on anxiety (Hedges' g = 0.667, p < 0.0001) (Fig. 2c). The active tDCS group also showed a significant effect on the response rate of depressive symptoms (OR = 1.959, p = 0.013) but not on the remission rate (OR = 1.500, p = 0.076) (Table 2a).

Fig. 2. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) on depression and anxiety: forest plots. (a) tDCS on depression; (b) CES on depression; (c) tDCS on anxiety.

Table 2. The effects of electrical neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance: different conditions. (a) only tDCS; (b) only CES; (c) all types of neuromodulation

tDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation; CES, cranial electrotherapy stimulation; MDD, major depressive disorder; HAMD, Hamilton Rating Scale for depression; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

For subgroup analysis of mild and moderate depression and of major depressive disorder, the active tDCS group was statistically superior to the sham group on depressive symptoms. For subgroup analysis of specific depression measurements, the active tDCS group was superior to the sham group on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). For subgroup analysis of different current intensities and treatment sessions, the active tDCS group showed a superior effect compared to the sham group. When separating different positions of electrodes, only F3–F4 revealed a significantly higher effect in the tDCS group than in the sham group.

Pooled effects of CES on depression and anxiety

Meta-analysis examining the active CES group showed a significant effect on depressive symptoms compared to the sham group (Hedges' g = 0.654, p < 0.0001) (Fig. 2b). Regarding secondary study outcomes, the active CES group showed a significant effect on anxiety (Hedges' g = 0.711, p = 0.001) (Table 2b).

Subgroup analysis of different severities of depression showed that the active CES group had a significant effect on mild depression but not on moderate depression. For subgroup analysis of different stimulation intensities, the active CES group had a large effect size for intensities of less than 1 mA. For subgroup analysis of the number of treatment sessions, the active CES group revealed a superior effect when the number of treatment sessions was greater than 10.

Treatment effect of all types of neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance

Combining all types of NINCEN, pooled analysis of the active NINCEN group showed a significant effect on depressive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.515, p < 0.0001). For secondary outcomes, the active NINCEN group showed a superior effect on anxiety compared to the sham group (Hedges' g = 0.651, p < 0.0001). Regarding sleep disturbance, the active NINCEN group showed a significant effect on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score, sleep efficiency, sleep latency and total sleep time, whereas it had no significant effect on sleep quality or daily disturbance (Table 2c).

For subgroup analysis of mild and moderate depression and of major depressive disorder, the active NINCEN group was statistically superior to the sham group on depressive symptoms. For subgroup analysis of specific depression measurements, the active NINCEN group was superior to the sham group on the HAMD, BDI and MADRS. For subgroup analysis of different stimulation intensities, the active NINCEN group had no significant effect on the 1 mA subgroup. On stratifying analysis into different treatment sessions, most subgroup analyses remained significant apart from the subgroup with five sessions (Hedges' g = 0.394, p = 0.07).

Sensitivity analysis

The stability of the meta-analysis and subgroup analyses was tested through a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. The pooled estimate of the following meta-analyses was influenced by a single study: the MADRS for all types of NINCEN; the BDI for tDCS; at least 20 sessions for tDCS; remission rate for tDCS; at least mild depression for only CES; total sleep time for all types of NINCEN; and daytime disturbance for all types of NINCEN (online Supplementary Table S3).

Publication bias

In the above analyses regarding depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance, visual inspection of the funnel plots revealed symmetry and thus no evidence of publication bias (online Supplementary Fig. S3). Egger's regression tests also indicated no publication bias (online Supplementary Table S4). Furthermore, there was no significant publication bias in the subgroup analyses.

Meta-regression

Analyses of study-level covariates showed a negative association between age and depressive symptoms (Table 3). The results indicated that age and medication status could have a moderating effect on the treatment effects of NINCEN (older subjects and subjects taking concomitant psychotropic agents tended to have lower efficacy). Other continuous variables across the studies, such as current, current density, number of treatment sessions and female proportion, did not show significant moderating effects on the meta-analytical result.

Table 3. Meta-regression of pre-defined variables of interest

tDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation; CES, cranial electrotherapy stimulation.

*p < 0.05.

Discussion

The major findings of the present study include:

  1. (1) tDCS had a significant effect on the improvement of depression and anxiety. Regarding depression, the effects of tDCS on patients with different levels of depression and the effects using a distinct scale were all significantly beneficial. With regard to binary outcome response and remission, tDCS revealed a significantly higher odds ratio for a response but not for remission. For tDCS using different levels of current, a number of treatment sessions all showed a significant effect.

  2. (2) The effects of CES on depression and anxiety in all subjects were significant. However, when considering the severity of depression, individuals with less severe depression seem to benefit more from CES. CES with a different number of treatment sessions all had a significant effect and CES using a low current had a relatively high therapeutic effect.

  3. (3) There are few study data for sleep disturbance. Combining the results of these studies, NINCEN had significant effects on the PSQI scores, sleep efficiency, sleep latency and total sleep time, whereas the effects on sleep quality and daily disturbance were non-significant. Combining all the NINCEN studies, treatment with at least 10 sessions seemed to be more promising.

  4. (4) Meta-regression analysis revealed that age and taking psychotropic agents had significant impacts on the results.

The most robust finding in our analysis is that tDCS is an effective treatment for depression and anxiety over a wide range of conditions, regardless of its severity or method of measurement. The effect size for treating depression in all subjects is 0.54 (a medium to large level), which varied little in the subgroup analyses. The results are compatible with previous meta-analyses exploring the effect of tDCS on depression (Berlim, Van den Eynde, & Daskalakis, Reference Berlim, Van den Eynde and Daskalakis2013; Kalu, Sexton, Loo, & Ebmeier, Reference Kalu, Sexton, Loo and Ebmeier2012; Shiozawa et al., Reference Shiozawa, Fregni, Bensenor, Lotufo, Berlim, Daskalakis and Brunoni2014; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Lam, Peng, Zhang, Zhang, Huang and Lee2021). Considering that depression and anxiety are frequently comorbid, tDCS may be beneficial for both. On a microscopic level, the therapeutic effect of tDCS on emotional disturbance may be associated with the resting membrane potential, spontaneous neuronal firing rates and synaptic strength (Arul-Anandam & Loo, Reference Arul-Anandam and Loo2009). When focusing on the activation of brain regions, the DLPFC and anterior cingulate cortex are often considered the main targets of tDCS (Bai, Dokos, Ho, & Loo, Reference Bai, Dokos, Ho and Loo2014; Jog et al., Reference Jog, Kim, Anderson, Kubicki, Kayathi, Jann and Narr2021; Mehrsafar et al., Reference Mehrsafar, Rosa, Zadeh and Gazerani2020; Wolkenstein & Plewnia, Reference Wolkenstein and Plewnia2013; Wolkenstein et al., Reference Wolkenstein, Zeiller, Kanske and Plewnia2014). Clarification of the mechanism would be helpful for the optimization of tDCS in the future.

With regard to the discrepancy of tDCS efficacy on the response and remission of depression, several points can be discussed. First, the result may be understood as ‘tDCS is helpful but does not show very high efficacy on depression’. This viewpoint is supported by some well-designed studies: for example, tDCS did not reveal non-inferiority to escitalopram in one randomized-controlled study (Brunoni et al., Reference Brunoni, Moffa, Sampaio-Junior, Borrione, Moreno, Fernandes and Bensenor2017). Second, in most included studies of our analysis tDCS was an add-on treatment, which means that these depressive patients are more likely to be treatment-resistant; this may underestimate the efficacy of tDCS. Such an explanation was supported by our meta-regression result regarding medication status: individuals without concomitant psychotropic agent use revealed better efficacy. Third, the result regarding remission did not pass the sensitivity analysis, therefore the non-significant efficacy of remission should be interpreted with caution.

The therapeutic effect of CES on depression was considered to be associated with the homeostasis of the limbic, hypothalamic and reticular activating system (Gunther & Phillips, Reference Gunther and Phillips2010). In our analysis, when separating subjects into different levels of depression, those with more severe depression showed relatively low improvement after receiving CES. However, when considering all subjects, the effect sizes for depression and anxiety were 0.65 and 0.71, respectively, which are higher than the effect size with tDCS. A recent meta-analysis points out that CES has a significant effect on treating depression, with a small to medium effect size (Price et al., Reference Price, Briley, Haltiwanger and Hitching2021); our result is similar, although the effect size in our study was a little higher. These results indicate that when facing emotional problems that are not very severe, the use of CES is a worthy option.

With regard to the results of the treatment setting, the tDCS and CES findings on current could be discussed separately. Most CES studies adopted a low current (less than 1 mA), which is effective for improving emotion; a higher current did not show significant efficacy. On the other hand, the current in tDCS studies was often higher than 1 mA and the efficacy of tDCS in most current ranges was significant. This discrepancy may imply distinct neurophysiological mechanisms for tDCS and CES. A recent meta-analysis (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Lam, Peng, Zhang, Zhang, Huang and Lee2021) points out that a current of 2 mA is effective in tDCS for treating depression; however, in our analysis, the effect sizes for ‘2 mA’ and ‘at least 1 mA’ were similar. Regarding all NINCEN studies, at least 10 treatment sessions seemed more promising because 20 or more sessions did not reveal any additional effect size. Furthermore, the electrode placement may be associated with treatment efficacy; F3–F4 seems the most promising and was also the most commonly adopted placement in the included studies. DLPFC is usually considered to be the targeted brain region of F3–F4 placement (Brighina et al., Reference Brighina, Curatolo, Cosentino, De Tommaso, Battaglia, Sarzi-Puttini and Fierro2019; Lloyd, Wittkopf, Arendsen, & Jones, Reference Lloyd, Wittkopf, Arendsen and Jones2020).

Our meta-regression indicates that the age of subjects affects the analysis results. The elderly showed a relatively low response to NINCEN and similar features were often found in pharmacotherapy studies (Knochel et al., Reference Knochel, Alves, Friedrichs, Schneider, Schmidt-Rechau, Wenzler and Oertel-Knochel2015). Based on the information above, if we view the ‘enhancing activity of specific brain regions’ as the main mechanism of NINCEN, then a rational hypothesis would be that ‘individuals with a higher level of brain degeneration have a higher resistance to be activated’. But the meta-regression may only disclose a ‘tendency’ and does not mean that NINCEN was ineffective in the elderly. Several studies in the elderly and in patients post-stroke have revealed NINCEN to be beneficial for both emotional and cognitive function (Li et al., Reference Li, Zhu, Klomparens, Xu, Wang, Wang and Song2019a; Lu et al., Reference Lu, He, Zhang, Wang, Zhang, Dong and Yang2020; Valiengo et al., Reference Valiengo, Goulart, de Oliveira, Bensenor, Lotufo and Brunoni2017; Wong et al., Reference Wong, Chan, Wong, Wong, Yung, Wong and Cheng2019).

Some analyses on depression and sleep disturbance did not pass the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, which means that the significance levels of these analyses would change when one included study was removed. Several tDCS analyses had this feature, such as using the BDI score as the outcome, treatment with at least 20 sessions and using the remission rate as the outcome, therefore these results should be interpreted cautiously; it may also explain the difference in meta-analyses on a similar topic. On the other hand, the results of analyses regarding publication bias revealed high robustness. For analyses with enough included studies, no significant effects were found in Egger's tests, which indicates that the therapeutic effects and size of the studies were not significantly correlated in our analyses.

Several limitations of this study should be discussed. First, the heterogeneity of the incorporated studies still needs to be viewed cautiously. Although we have used subgroup analyses to manage the different treatment settings, targeted populations and measurements, some issues cannot be analyzed using this approach. Second, tDCS and CES were adopted in most included studies, therefore the meta-analyses for these two techniques had higher values; the meta-analysis results for all types of NINCEN are thus highly influenced by the tDCS and CES data. Analysis of all types of NINCEN was for comprehensiveness and for extracting other effective components of this kind of therapy; however, our findings for the latter were not very impressive. Third, we only analyzed the effects of ‘active NINCEN stimulation v. sham’ in this study. Some studies compared the efficacy of NINCEN and other types of interventions (Park et al., Reference Park, Choi, Kim, Kim, Son, Roh and Park2020); however, if we had performed this analysis the article would have become too complicated. Fourth, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance actually have some overlapping presentations (e.g. sleep disturbance is sometimes one symptom of depression/anxiety). This cannot be managed in the current meta-analysis because of a lack of detailed symptom profiles. Finally, our analysis could not provide more insight about the conditions contraindicated for receiving NINCEN because individuals with contraindications were excluded from the studies, thus no available data could be used for incorporation. Common contraindications of NINCEN in these studies included a history of seizures, use of a pacemaker and scalp conditions that could be affected by NINCEN (Cleland, Galick, Huckstep, Lenhart, & Madhavan, Reference Cleland, Galick, Huckstep, Lenhart and Madhavan2020; Russo, Souza Carneiro, Bolognini, & Fregni, Reference Russo, Souza Carneiro, Bolognini and Fregni2017).

The results for tDCS and CES in this analysis have clinical meaning. In summary, tDCS is effective for both depression and anxiety; the effects are robust when considering different populations and treatment parameters but the rational expectation of the effect of tDCS should be ‘response’ rather than ‘remission’. CES also has a significant effect on depression and anxiety; in addition, it is relatively effective for patients with mild depression. Electrode placement and medication status are also factors that could affect treatment efficacy. Both tDCS and CES may be used for patients with depression/anxiety who are not suitable receiving pharmacotherapy. To determine whether other NINCEN options are safe and effective, further large and well-designed trials are required.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721005560

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms. Yi-Ling Lin, Ms. Huei-Mei Ma and Ms. Yi-Mei Huang for their administrative work during manuscript preparation.

Financial support

None.

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standards

This systematic review/meta-analysis has been approved by PROSPERO (ID No. CRD42021227132).

References

Ali, S. A., Mathur, N., Malhotra, A. K., & Braga, R. J. (2019). Electroconvulsive therapy and schizophrenia: A systematic review. Molecular Neuropsychiatry, 5(2), 7583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apaydin, E. A., Maher, A. R., Shanman, R., Booth, M. S., Miles, J. N., Sorbero, M. E., & Hempel, S. (2016). A systematic review of St. John's wort for major depressive disorder. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arul-Anandam, A. P., & Loo, C. (2009). Transcranial direct current stimulation: A new tool for the treatment of depression? Journal of Affective Disorders, 117(3), 137145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bai, S., Dokos, S., Ho, K. A., & Loo, C. (2014). A computational modelling study of transcranial direct current stimulation montages used in depression. NeuroImage, 87, 332344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barclay, T. H., & Barclay, R. D. (2014). A clinical trial of cranial electrotherapy stimulation for anxiety and comorbid depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 164, 171177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berlim, M. T., Van den Eynde, F., & Daskalakis, Z. J. (2013). Clinical utility of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating major depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47(1), 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumberger, D. M., Tran, L. C., Fitzgerald, P. B., Hoy, K. E., & Daskalakis, Z. J. (2012). A randomized double-blind sham-controlled study of transcranial direct current stimulation for treatment-resistant major depression. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 3, 74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bottomley, J. M., LeReun, C., Diamantopoulos, A., Mitchell, S., & Gaynes, B. N. (2019). Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy in patients with treatment resistant depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 98, 152156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brighina, F., Curatolo, M., Cosentino, G., De Tommaso, M., Battaglia, G., Sarzi-Puttini, P. C., … Fierro, B. (2019). Brain modulation by electric currents in fibromyalgia: A structured review on non-invasive approach with transcranial electrical stimulation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunoni, A. R., Boggio, P. S., De Raedt, R., Bensenor, I. M., Lotufo, P. A., Namur, V., … Vanderhasselt, M. A. (2014). Cognitive control therapy and transcranial direct current stimulation for depression: A randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 162, 4349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunoni, A. R., Moffa, A. H., Sampaio-Junior, B., Borrione, L., Moreno, M. L., Fernandes, R. A., … Bensenor, I. M. (2017). Trial of electrical direct-current therapy versus escitalopram for depression. The New England Journal of Medicine, 376(26), 25232533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, H. N., Alonzo, A., Martin, D. M., Mitchell, P. B., Sachdev, P., & Loo, C. K. (2013). Augmenting transcranial direct current stimulation with (D)-cycloserine for depression: A pilot study. The Journal of ECT, 29(3), 196200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleland, B. T., Galick, M., Huckstep, A., Lenhart, L., & Madhavan, S. (2020). Feasibility and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in an outpatient rehabilitation setting after stroke. Brain Sciences, 10(10), 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell'Osso, B., Priori, A., & Altamura, A. C. (2011). Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in major depression. Biological Psychiatry, 69, e23e24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Risio, L., Borgi, M., Pettorruso, M., Miuli, A., Ottomana, A. M., Sociali, A., … Zoratto, F. (2020). Recovering from depression with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): A systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies. Translational Psychiatry, 10(1), 393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Generoso, M. B., Taiar, I. T., Garrocini, L. P., Bernardon, R., Cordeiro, Q., Uchida, R. R., & Shiozawa, P. (2019). Effect of a 10-day transcutaneous trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS) protocol for depression amelioration: A randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled phase II clinical trial. Epilepsy & Behavior, 95, 3942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guleyupoglu, B., Schestatsky, P., Edwards, D., Fregni, F., & Bikson, M. (2013). Classification of methods in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) and evolving strategy from historical approaches to contemporary innovations. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 219(2), 297311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunther, M., & Phillips, K. D. (2010). Cranial electrotherapy stimulation for the treatment of depression. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 48(11), 3742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hein, E., Nowak, M., Kiess, O., Biermann, T., Bayerlein, K., Kornhuber, J., & Kraus, T. (2013). Auricular transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in depressed patients: A randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Neural Transmission (Vienna), 120(5), 821827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 15391558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jog, M. S., Kim, E., Anderson, C., Kubicki, A., Kayathi, R., Jann, K., … Narr, K. L. (2021). In-vivo imaging of targeting and modulation of depression-relevant circuitry by transcranial direct current stimulation: A randomized clinical trial. Translational Psychiatry, 11, 138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalu, U. G., Sexton, C. E., Loo, C. K., & Ebmeier, K. P. (2012). Transcranial direct current stimulation in the treatment of major depression: A meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), 17911800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kavirajan, H. C., Lueck, K., & Chuang, K. (2014). Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (7), CD010521.Google ScholarPubMed
Knochel, C., Alves, G., Friedrichs, B., Schneider, B., Schmidt-Rechau, A., Wenzler, S., … Oertel-Knochel, V. (2015). Treatment-resistant late-life depression: Challenges and perspectives. Current Neuropharmacology, 13(5), 577591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosari, Z., Dadashi, M., Maghbouli, M., & Mostafavi, H. (2019). Comparing the effectiveness of neurofeedback and transcranial direct current stimulation on sleep quality of patients with migraine. Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, 10(6), 579588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, P. M., Thomson, R. H., Rosenfeld, J. V., & Fitzgerald, P. B. (2016). Brain neuromodulation techniques: A review. Neuroscientist, 22(4), 406421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, H., Cui, L., Li, J., Liu, Y., & Chen, Y. (2021). Comparative efficacy and acceptability of neuromodulation procedures in the treatment of treatment-resistant depression: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Affective Disorders, 287, 115124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, H., Zhu, N., Klomparens, E. A., Xu, S., Wang, M., Wang, Q., … Song, L. (2019 a). Application of functional near-infrared spectroscopy to explore the neural mechanism of transcranial direct current stimulation for post-stroke depression. Neurological Research, 41(8), 714721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, M. S., Du, X. D., Chu, H. C., Liao, Y. Y., Pan, W., Li, Z., & Hung, G. C. (2019 b). Delayed effect of bifrontal transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with treatment-resistant depression: A pilot study. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, Y. Y., Chang, C. C., Huang, C. C., Tzeng, N. S., Kao, Y. C., & Chang, H. A. (2021). Efficacy and neurophysiological predictors of treatment response of adjunct bifrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in treating unipolar and bipolar depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 280, 295304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, D. M., Wittkopf, P. G., Arendsen, L. J., & Jones, A. K. P. (2020). Is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effective for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Pain, 21(11–12), 10851100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loo, C. K., Husain, M. M., McDonald, W. M., Aaronson, S., O'Reardon, J. P., & Alonzo, A., … International Consortium of Research in tDCS. (2018). International randomized-controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation in depression. Brain Stimulation, 11(1), 125133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loo, C. K., Sachdev, P., Martin, D., Pigot, M., Alonzo, A., Malhi, G. S., … Mitchell, P. (2010). A double-blind, sham-controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of depression. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 13(1), 6169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, T., He, L., Zhang, B., Wang, J., Zhang, L., Dong, W. W., & Yang, H. (2020). Percutaneous mastoid electrical stimulator improves post-stroke depression and cognitive function in patients with ischaemic stroke: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled study. BMC Neurology, 20(1), 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrsafar, A. H., Rosa, M. A. S., Zadeh, A. M., & Gazerani, P. (2020). A feasibility study of application and potential effects of a single session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on competitive anxiety, mood state, salivary levels of cortisol and alpha-amylase in elite athletes under a real-world competition. Physiology & Behavior, 227, 113173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meron, D., Hedger, N., Garner, M., & Baldwin, D. S. (2015). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of depression: Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and tolerability. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 4662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morriss, R., Xydopoulos, G., Craven, M., Price, L., & Fordham, R. (2019). Clinical effectiveness and cost minimisation model of Alpha-Stim cranial electrotherapy stimulation in treatment-seeking patients with moderate to severe generalised anxiety disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 253, 426437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutz, J., Edgcumbe, D. R., Brunoni, A. R., & Fu, C. H. Y. (2018). Efficacy and acceptability of non-invasive brain stimulation for the treatment of adult unipolar and bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, 291303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padberg, F., Kumpf, U., Mansmann, U., Palm, U., Plewnia, C., Langguth, , … Bajbouj, M. (2017). Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as treatment for major depression: Study design and methodology of a multicenter triple-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial (DepressionDC). European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 267(8), 751766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palm, U., Schiller, C., Fintescu, Z., Obermeier, M., Keeser, D., Reisinger, E., … Padberg, F. (2012). Transcranial direct current stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Brain Stimulation, 5(3), 242251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, S., Choi, W. J., Kim, S., Kim, B., Son, S. J., Roh, D., … Park, J. Y. (2020). Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation using miniaturized devices vs sertraline for depression in Korea: A 6 week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 127, 4247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, L., Briley, J., Haltiwanger, S., & Hitching, R. (2021). A meta-analysis of cranial electrotherapy stimulation in the treatment of depression. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 135, 119134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, T., & Cohen Kadosh, R. (2018). Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) mechanisms and its effects on cortical excitability and connectivity. Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, 41(6), 11231130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, C., Souza Carneiro, M. I., Bolognini, N., & Fregni, F. (2017). Safety review of transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke. Neuromodulation, 20(3), 215222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sampaio-Junior, B., Tortella, G., Borrione, L., Moffa, A. H., Machado-Vieira, R., Cretaz, E., … Brunoni, A. R. (2018). Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(2), 158166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauvaget, A., Tostivint, A., Etcheverrigaray, F., Pichot, A., Dert, C., Schirr-Bonnais, S., … Riche, V. P. (2019). Hospital production cost of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of depression. Neurophysiologie Clinique, 49(1), 1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharafi, E., Taghva, A., Arbabi, M., Dadarkhah, A., & Ghaderi, J. (2019). Transcranial direct current stimulation for treatment-resistant major depression: A double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 50(6), 375382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, V. D., Sengupta, S., Chitnis, S., & Amara, A. W. (2018). Deep brain stimulation and sleep-wake disturbances in Parkinson disease: A review. Frontiers in Neurology, 9, 697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shiozawa, P., da Silva, M. E., Netto, G. T., Taiar, I., & Cordeiro, Q. (2015). Effect of a 10-day trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS) protocol for treating major depressive disorder: A phase II, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Epilepsy & Behavior, 44, 2326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shiozawa, P., Fregni, F., Bensenor, I. M., Lotufo, P. A., Berlim, M. T., Daskalakis, J. Z., … Brunoni, A. R. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation for major depression: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 17(9), 14431452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taremian, F., Nazari, S., Moradveisi, L., & Moloodi, R. (2019). Transcranial direct current stimulation on opium craving, depression, and anxiety: A preliminary study. The Journal of ECT, 35(3), 201206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valiengo, L. C., Goulart, A. C., de Oliveira, J. F., Bensenor, I. M., Lotufo, P. A., & Brunoni, A. R. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of post-stroke depression: Results from a randomised, sham-controlled, double-blinded trial. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 88(2), 170175.10.1136/jnnp-2016-314075CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagenseil, B., Garcia, C., Suvorov, A. V., Fietze, I., & Penzel, T. (2018). The effect of cranial electrotherapy stimulation on sleep in healthy women. Physiological Measurement, 39(11), 114007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolkenstein, L., & Plewnia, C. (2013). Amelioration of cognitive control in depression by transcranial direct current stimulation. Biological Psychiatry, 73(7), 646651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolkenstein, L., Zeiller, M., Kanske, P., & Plewnia, C. (2014). Induction of a depression-like negativity bias by cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Cortex, 59, 103112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, H. L., Chan, W. C., Wong, Y. L., Wong, S. N., Yung, H. Y., Wong, S. C., & Cheng, P. C. (2019). High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation: An open-label pilot intervention in alleviating depressive symptoms and cognitive deficits in late-life depression. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 25(11), 12441253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woods, A. J., Antal, A., Bikson, M., Boggio, P. S., Brunoni, A. R., Celnik, P., … Nitsche, M. A. (2016). A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clinical Neurophysiology, 127(2), 10311048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yennurajalingam, S., Kang, D. H., Hwu, W. J., Padhye, N. S., Masino, C., Dibaj, S. S., … Bruera, E. (2018). Cranial electrotherapy stimulation for the management of depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and pain in patients with advanced cancer: A preliminary study. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 55(2), 198206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zanardi, R., Poletti, S., Prestifilippo, D., Attanasio, F., Barbini, B., & Colombo, C. (2020). Transcranial direct current stimulation: A novel approach in the treatment of vascular depression. Brain Stimulation, 13(6), 15591565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, R., Lam, C. L. M., Peng, X., Zhang, D., Zhang, C., Huang, R., & Lee, T. M. C. (2021). Efficacy and acceptability of transcranial direct current stimulation for treating depression: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 126, 481490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, Y. J., Tor, P. C., Khoo, A. L., Teng, M., Lim, B. P., & Mok, Y. M. (2018). Cost-effectiveness modeling of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation compared to electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant depression in Singapore. Neuromodulation, 21(4), 376382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Q., Yu, C., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., Liu, Z., Hu, Z., … Zhou, D. (2020). The effects of repeated transcranial direct current stimulation on sleep quality and depression symptoms in patients with major depression and insomnia. Sleep Medicine, 70, 1726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Comparison of different types of electrical neuromodulation

Figure 1

Fig. 1. PRISMA flowchart of included studies.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) on depression and anxiety: forest plots. (a) tDCS on depression; (b) CES on depression; (c) tDCS on anxiety.

Figure 3

Table 2. The effects of electrical neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance: different conditions. (a) only tDCS; (b) only CES; (c) all types of neuromodulation

Figure 4

Table 3. Meta-regression of pre-defined variables of interest

Supplementary material: File

Cheng et al. supplementary material

Cheng et al. supplementary material

Download Cheng et al. supplementary material(File)
File 463 KB
You have Access Open access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The efficacy of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The efficacy of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The efficacy of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *