Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Approach for Anxiety and Related Markers: Comprehensive Systematic Review.

IF 2.2 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Flávia de Moraes, Nathali Dalzochio, Filipe Reis Teodoro Andrade, André R Brunoni, Arthur França de Souza, Wolnei Caumo, Rosa Maria Martins de Almeida
{"title":"Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Approach for Anxiety and Related Markers: Comprehensive Systematic Review.","authors":"Flávia de Moraes, Nathali Dalzochio, Filipe Reis Teodoro Andrade, André R Brunoni, Arthur França de Souza, Wolnei Caumo, Rosa Maria Martins de Almeida","doi":"10.47626/2237-6089-2024-0950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to assess the effects of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) on adults with anxiety. It focuses on evaluating physiological markers like heart rate variability (HRV), electroencephalogram (EEG), cortisol, and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels alongside various rating scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review process, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, involved a thorough literature search across databases such as Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. The risk of bias and quality of studies was evaluated using the JADAD scale. In total, 34 articles were meticulously chosen and analyzed by independent reviewer pairs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 34 studies, encompassing 1567 participants aged between 18 to 65. The findings were mixed: while 19 studies reported a reduction in anxiety symptoms, 10 found no significant differences, and 4 did not report changes in anxiety. Two studies were inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The review highlights a lack of standardized protocols for using tDCS in treating anxiety. The methodological quality of most studies was critically low, per PRISMA guidelines. There was considerable variation in methodological approaches across the studies, indicating a need for standardization in the research of anxiety treatment using tES.</p>","PeriodicalId":46305,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47626/2237-6089-2024-0950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aims to assess the effects of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) on adults with anxiety. It focuses on evaluating physiological markers like heart rate variability (HRV), electroencephalogram (EEG), cortisol, and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels alongside various rating scales.

Methods: The review process, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, involved a thorough literature search across databases such as Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. The risk of bias and quality of studies was evaluated using the JADAD scale. In total, 34 articles were meticulously chosen and analyzed by independent reviewer pairs.

Results: The review included 34 studies, encompassing 1567 participants aged between 18 to 65. The findings were mixed: while 19 studies reported a reduction in anxiety symptoms, 10 found no significant differences, and 4 did not report changes in anxiety. Two studies were inconclusive.

Conclusions: The review highlights a lack of standardized protocols for using tDCS in treating anxiety. The methodological quality of most studies was critically low, per PRISMA guidelines. There was considerable variation in methodological approaches across the studies, indicating a need for standardization in the research of anxiety treatment using tES.

经颅直流电刺激作为焦虑和相关标志物的治疗方法:综合系统综述。
目的:本系统综述旨在评估经颅电刺激(tES)治疗成人焦虑症的效果。它侧重于评估生理指标,如心率变异性(HRV)、脑电图(EEG)、皮质醇和白细胞介素-6 (IL-6)水平以及各种评分量表。方法:评审过程遵循PRISMA指南,包括在Embase、Scopus、PsycINFO、PubMed和Web of Science等数据库中进行全面的文献检索。使用JADAD量表评估偏倚风险和研究质量。共有34篇文章经过独立审稿人的精心挑选和分析。结果:该综述包括34项研究,包括1567名年龄在18至65岁之间的参与者。研究结果好坏参半:19项研究报告焦虑症状减轻,10项研究没有发现显著差异,4项研究没有报告焦虑的变化。两项研究尚无定论。结论:该综述强调缺乏使用tDCS治疗焦虑的标准化方案。根据PRISMA指南,大多数研究的方法学质量非常低。这些研究的方法方法存在相当大的差异,这表明在使用tES治疗焦虑的研究中需要标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信