Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the motor cortex (M1) produces short-term inhibition of pain. Unihemispheric concurrent dual-site tDCS (UHCDS-tDCS) over the M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has greater effects on cortical excitability than when applied alone, although its effect on pain is unknown. The aim of this study was to test if anodal UHCDS-tDCS over the M1 and DLPFC in healthy participants could potentiate conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and diminish pain temporal summation (TS). Methods: Thirty participants were randomized to receive a sequence of UHCDS-tDCS, M1-tDCS and sham-tDCS. A 20 min 0.1 mA/cm² anodal or sham-tDCS intervention was applied to each participant during three test sessions, according to a triple-blind cross-over trial design. For the assessment of pain processing before and after tDCS intervention, the following tests were performed: tourniquet conditioned pain modulation (CPM), pressure pain temporal summation (TS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), pressure pain tolerance, mechanosensitivity and cold hyperalgesia. Motor function before and after tDCS intervention was assessed with a dynamometer to measure maximal isometric grip strength. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between groups for CPM, pressure pain TS, PPT, pressure pain tolerance, neural mechanosensitivity, cold hyperalgesia or grip strength (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Neither UHCDS-tDCS nor M1-tDCS facilitated CPM or inhibited TS in healthy subjects following one intervention session.

Background: The aim of this study is to determine the effect that different tDCS protocols have on pain processing in healthy people, assessed using quantitative sensory tests (QST) and evoked pain intensity. Methods: We systematically searched in EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles on tDCS on a healthy population and regarding QST, such as pressure pain thresholds (PPT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), cold pain threshold (CPT), or evoked pain intensity were selected. Quality was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and PEDro scale. Results: Twenty-six RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and sixteen in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in PPTs between tDCS and sham, but differences were observed when applying tDCS over S1 in PPTs compared to sham. Significant differences in CPTs were observed between tDCS and sham over DLPFC and differences in pain intensity were observed between tDCS and sham over M1. Non-significant effects were found for the effects of tDCS on HPTs. Conclusion: tDCS anodic over S1 stimulation increases PPTs, while a-tDCS over DLPFC affects CPTs. The HPTs with tDCS are worse. Finally, M1 a-tDCS seems to reduce evoked pain intensity in healthy subjects.

(1) Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a safe intervention, only producing mild and transient adverse effects (AEs). However, there is no detailed analysis of the pattern of adverse effects in an application transferable to the clinic. Therefore, our objective is to describe the AEs produced by tDCS and its temporal evolution. (2) Methods: A total of 33 young volunteers were randomized into a tDCS or sham group. Participants performed a hand dexterity task while receiving the tDCS or sham intervention (20 min and 1 mA), for five consecutive days. AEs were assessed daily after each intervention and classified as somatosensory, pain, or other effects. (3) Results: The number of AEs was generally increased by tDCS intervention. Specifically, tDCS led to more frequent somatosensory discomfort, characterized by sensations like itching and tingling, alongside painful sensations such as burning, compared to the sham intervention. Additionally, certain adverse events, including neck and arm pain, as well as dizziness and blurry vision, were exclusive to the tDCS group. Interestingly, tDCS produced similar AEs across the days; meanwhile, the somatosensory AEs in the sham group showed a trend to decrease. (4) Conclusions: tDCS produces mild and temporary somatosensory and pain AEs during and across sessions. The different evolution of the AEs between the tDCS and sham protocol could unmask the blinding protocol most used in tDCS studies. Potential solutions for improving blinding protocols for future studies are discussed.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated as a way of improving motor learning. Our purpose was to explore the reversal bilateral tDCS effects on manual dexterity training, during five days, with the retention component measured after 5 days to determine whether somatosensory effects were produced. In this randomized, triple-blind clinical trial, 28 healthy subjects (14 women) were recruited and randomized into tDCS and placebo groups, although only 23 participants (13 women) finished the complete protocol. Participants received the real or placebo treatment during five consecutive days, while performing a motor dexterity training program of 20 min. The motor dexterity and the sensitivity of the hand were assessed pre- and post-day 1, post 5 days of training, and 5 days after training concluded. Training improved motor dexterity, but tDCS only produced a tendency to improve retention. The intervention did not produce changes in the somatosensory variables assessed. Thus, reversal bi-tDCS had no effects during motor learning on healthy subjects, but it could favor the retention of the motor skills acquired. These results do not support the cooperative inter-hemispheric model.

Background: Chronic pain significantly impacts the physical, emotional, and social wellbeing of individuals. Despite advances in treatments, chronic pain prevalence continues to rise, emphasizing the need for comprehensive therapeutic approaches. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effects of a one-month Pain Oriented Biobehavioral Therapeutic Education (POBTE) program on clinical outcomes for chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. Methods: In a single-blind feasibility pilot of a randomized controlled trial, 16 participants were assigned to an intervention group receiving POBTE education and exercise ( n = 8) or a control group ( n = 8) participating in exercise only. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) plasma levels. Results: The intervention group showed a significant increase in BDNF levels from a mean of 2.174 at baseline to 3.063 at the end of treatment ( p = 0.001, r = 0.63), with a non-significant reduction in pain intensity. Secondary outcomes, including anxiety, sleep quality, and physical activity, improved significantly. The results, however, should be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size. Conclusion: The POBTE program appears feasible and acceptable, showing preliminary signals consistent with potential improvements in several clinical variables related to chronic pain management. These exploratory findings support the need for larger-scale, adequately powered trials.