記住我
Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process.
Figure 2. Forest plots. (A) Primary outcome: comparison between baseline and endpoint of active groups [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. (B) Secondary outcome: comparison between endpoints of both active and placebo groups [20,22,24,25]. Figure 3. Electric field modeling analysis [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. (A) Mean and standard deviation of electric field strength of montages across different brain regions of interest. (B) Electric field distribution based on the different montages used. Note: For this analysis, we used the D’Urso et al. study (cathode) as reference, as this montage has already been found to produce stronger EFs in regions of interest for OCD [41,42]. A higher mean represents a stronger EF in the regions of interest. Results displayed in bold font represent significance in comparison to D’Urso et al., 2016 (cathode). Therefore, Da Silva et al., 2021 [22] and D’Urso et al., 2006 (anode) [23] did not show any EF strength differences in comparison to the reference montage. Abbreviation: ACC—anterior cingulate cortex; N/A—not applicable (For the left ACC analysis, the electric field modeling was able to quantify only one subregion. Therefore, no standard deviation is presented.); ROI—region of interest; SMA—supplementary motor area. p-values represent the linear regression results. p-values ≤ 0.05 were considered significant. Figure 3. Electric field modeling analysis [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. (A) Mean and standard deviation of electric field strength of montages across different brain regions of interest. (B) Electric field distribution based on the different montages used. Note: For this analysis, we used the D’Urso et al. study (cathode) as reference, as this montage has already been found to produce stronger EFs in regions of interest for OCD [41,42]. A higher mean represents a stronger EF in the regions of interest. Results displayed in bold font represent significance in comparison to D’Urso et al., 2016 (cathode). Therefore, Da Silva et al., 2021 [22] and D’Urso et al., 2006 (anode) [23] did not show any EF strength differences in comparison to the reference montage. Abbreviation: ACC—anterior cingulate cortex; N/A—not applicable (For the left ACC analysis, the electric field modeling was able to quantify only one subregion. Therefore, no standard deviation is presented.); ROI—region of interest; SMA—supplementary motor area. p-values represent the linear regression results. p-values ≤ 0.05 were considered significant.Table 1. Summary of the included studies.
Table 1. Summary of the included studies.
Demographic DataClinical DatatDCS Strategy ReferenceSample SizeMean Age% FemaleTreat. StrategyTRDNumber of SessionsCurrent IntensityDuration (min)Electrode PositionElectrode Size (cm2)Study DesignRisk of BiasBation et al. (2016) [21]844.2 (13.8)75Add-onYes10220Anode: right cerebellumTable 2. Results of univariate meta-regression analyses.
Table 2. Results of univariate meta-regression analyses.
Coef (B)95% CIp Lower LimitUpper LimitAugmentation Strategy−0.02−0.880.460.54Sessions per day0.49−0.181.180.15Session duration −0.27−0.090.410.43Number of weeks−0.05−0.160.480.27Session total−0.03−0.080.010.18
留言 (0)