Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.Objective: We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson’s disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.Methods: Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.Results: Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson’s disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).Conclusion: All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

The field of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) has experienced significant growth in the past 15 years. One of the tES techniques leading this increased interest is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Significant research efforts have been devoted to determining the clinical potential of tDCS in humans. Despite the promising results obtained with tDCS in basic and clinical neuroscience, further progress has been impeded by a lack of clarity on international regulatory pathways. Therefore, a group of research and clinician experts on tDCS were convened to review the research and clinical use of tDCS. This report reviews the regulatory status of tDCS and summarizes the results according to research, off-label, and compassionate use of tDCS in the following countries: Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Portugal, South Korea, Taiwan, and the US. Research use, off label treatment, and compassionate use of tDCS are employed in most of the countries reviewed in this study. It is critical that a global or local effort is organized to pursue definite evidence to either approve and regulate or restrict the use of tDCS in clinical practice on the basis of adequate randomized controlled treatment trials.

The central sensitization syndrome (CSS) encompasses disorders with overlapping symptoms in a structural pathology spectrum ranging from persistent nociception [e.g., osteoarthritis (OA)] to an absence of tissue injuries such as the one presented in fibromyalgia (FM) and myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). First, we hypothesized that these syndromes present differences in their cortical excitability parameters assessed by TMS, namely motor evoked potential (MEP), cortical silent period (CSP), short intracortical inhibition (SICI) and short intracortical facilitation (SICF). Second, considering that the presence of tissue injury could be detected by serum neurotrophins, we hypothesized that the spectrum of structural pathology (i.e., from persistent nociception like in OA, to the absence of tissue injury like in FM and MPS), could be detected by differential efficiency of their descending pain inhibitory system, as assessed by the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm. Third, we explored whether BDNF had an influence on the relationship between motor cortex excitability and structural pathology. This cross-sectional study pooled baseline data from three randomized clinical trials. We included females (n=114), aged 19 to 65 years old with disability by chronic pain syndromes: FM (n= 19), MPS (n=54), OA (n=27) and healthy subjects (n=14). We assessed the serum BDNF, the motor cortex excitability by parameters the TMS measures and the change on Numerical Pain Scale [NPS (0-10)] during CPM-task. The adjusted mean (SD) on the SICI observed in the absence of tissue injury was 56.36% lower than with persistent nociceptive input [0.31(0.18) vs. 0.55 (0.32)], respectively. The BDNF was inversely correlated with the SICI and with the change on NPS (0-10) during CPM-task. These findings suggest greater disinhibition in the motor cortex and the descending pain inhibitory system in FM and MPS than in OA and healthy subjects. Likewise, the inter-hemispheric disinhibition as well the dysfunction in the descending pain modulatory system is higher in chronic pain without tissue injury compared to a structural lesion. In addition, they highlight that a greater level of serum BDNF mediated the disinhibition of motor cortex excitability, as well the function of descending inhibitory pain modulation system, independently of the physiopathology mechanism of musculoskeletal pain syndromes.