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.
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。