Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

60 questions · 67 findings · 7 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 18 · 26.9%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 26 · 38.8%Low 10 · 14.9%Moderate 12 · 17.9%High 1 · 1.5%

Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training

Cognitive function · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training

Quality of life · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training

Adverse events · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 3 participants
Very low

Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training

Word retrieval · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 6 participants
Very low

Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training

Overall language abilities · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training

Cognitive function · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training

Quality of life · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training

Adverse events · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 6 participants
Very low

Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training

Adverse events · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 37 participants
Very low

Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training

Word retrieval · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 93 participants
Very low

Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training

Overall language abilities · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 28 participants
Very low

Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training

Cognitive function · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 37 participants
Very low

Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training

Quality of life · adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 16 participants
Very low

tDCS vs sham

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · adults with chronic pain

It is very uncertain whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) changes pain intensity (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using… compared with sham (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
27 studies · 747 participants
Very low

tDCS vs sham

Disability (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using self‐reported disability/pain interference scales · adults with chronic pain

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 212 participants
Low

tDCS vs sham

Quality of life (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using different scales across studies · adults with chronic pain

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 82 participants
Low

tDCS vs sham

Reduction in anxiety and depression · chronic neuropathic pain in MS

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 35 participants
Very low

tDCS vs sham

Improvement in QoL · chronic neuropathic pain in MS

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 19 participants
Very low

tDCS vs sham

Reduction in pain intensity · chronic neuropathic pain in MS

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 35 participants
Very low

tDCS vs sham

Reduction in fatigue · chronic neuropathic pain in MS

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 16 participants
Very low