A comparative analysis of technical data: At-home vs. in-clinic application of transcranial direct current stimulation in depression
Objective: The application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at home for the treatment of depression and other neuropsychiatric disorders presents both significant opportunities and inherent challenges. Ensuring safety and maintaining high-quality stimulation are paramount for the ef...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Brain Stimulation |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X25002074 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Objective: The application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at home for the treatment of depression and other neuropsychiatric disorders presents both significant opportunities and inherent challenges. Ensuring safety and maintaining high-quality stimulation are paramount for the efficacy and safety of at-home tDCS. This study investigates tDCS quality based on its technical parameters as well as safety of at-home and in-clinic tDCS applications comparing the data from two randomized controlled trials in patients with major depressive disorder. Methods: We analyzed 229 active stimulation sessions from the HomeDC study (at-home tDCS) and 835 sessions from the DepressionDC study (in-clinic tDCS). Notably, five adverse events (skin lesions) were reported exclusively in the at-home cohort, highlighting the critical need for enhanced safety protocols in unsupervised environments. Results: The analysis revealed a significant difference in the average variability of impedances between at-home and in-clinic applications (F1,46 = 4.96, p = .031, η2 = .097). The at-home tDCS sessions exhibited higher impedance variability (M = 837, SD = 328) compared to in-clinic sessions (M = 579, SD = 309). Furthermore, at-home tDCS sessions resulting in adverse events (AEs) were associated with significantly higher average impedances than sessions without such issues. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that monitoring the technical parameters of at-home tDCS used in this study is essential. However, it may be not sufficient for ensuring safety and promptly detecting or preventing adverse events. Quality control protocols including digital training and monitoring techniques should be systematically developed and tested for a reliable and safe application of at-home tDCS therapies. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1935-861X |