A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

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.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been proposed for experimental and therapeutic modulation of regional brain function. Specifically, anodal tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) together with cathodal tDCS of the supraorbital region have been associated with improvement of cognition and mood, and have been suggested for the treatment of several neurological and psychiatric disorders. Although modeled mathematically, the distribution, direction, and extent of tDCS-mediated effects on brain physiology are not well understood. The current study investigates whether tDCS of the human prefrontal cortex modulates resting-state network (RSN) connectivity measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Thirteen healthy subjects underwent real and sham tDCS in random order on separate days. tDCS was applied for 20 min at 2 mA with the anode positioned over the left DLPFC and the cathode over the right supraorbital region. Patterns of resting-state brain connectivity were assessed before and after tDCS with 3 T fMRI, and changes were analyzed for relevant networks related to the stimulation–electrode localizations. At baseline, four RSNs were detected, corresponding to the default mode network (DMN), the left and right frontal-parietal networks (FPNs) and the self-referential network. After real tDCS and compared with sham tDCS, significant changes of regional brain connectivity were found for the DMN and the FPNs both close to the primary stimulation site and in connected brain regions. These findings show that prefrontal tDCS modulates resting-state functional connectivity in distinct functional networks of the human brain.

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.