First-pass extracted concept

non-invasive brain stimulation

Candidate: concept label4 source documents16 linked claims
Live refresh every 5sNext refresh in 5s

Aliases

NIBS

Evidence Snippets

This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the type and frequency of adverse effects, tolerability, and acceptability across different brain stimulation techniques and mental disorders.
Evidence 1Source 1DOIPubMedprovenance
Non-invasive brain stimulations (NIBS), such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial alternating current stimulation, transcranial focused ultrasound, and transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS), employ electric currents or acoustic waves to induce and modulate neuroplasticity in humans.
Evidence 2Source 2DOIPubMedprovenance
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been an increasingly used therapeutic modality for neuropsychiatric disorders in recent decades.
Evidence 3Source 3DOIPubMedprovenance
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS), have emerged as promising alternatives.
Evidence 4Source 4DOIPubMedprovenance

Supporting Sources

Linked Claims

Claim 1eligibility criteriasupports2026Source 1DOIPubMed

The planned review will include randomized controlled trials and prospective non-randomized studies of adverse effects of non-invasive brain stimulation in psychiatric populations, provided adverse-effect frequency is reported in a standardized manner.

Quoted textsource-backed
Eligible studies include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare active treatments or an active treatment with sham control, including both parallel group and cross-over studies, as well as prospective non-randomised studies such as case-control studies and pre-post studies investigating adverse effects of non-invasive brain stimulation in psychiatric populations. Included studies report on the frequency of adverse effects in a standardised manner.
Claim 2evidence gapsupports2026Source 1DOIPubMed

Adverse-effect data for non-invasive brain stimulation methods in psychiatric use are fragmented and inconsistently reported.

Quoted textsource-backed
Although these methods show promising efficacy, data on their adverse effects remain fragmented and inconsistently reported.
Claim 3planned analysissupports2026Source 1DOIPubMed

A network meta-analysis is planned if sufficient data are available and the comparison network is adequately connected.

Quoted textsource-backed
Provided that sufficient data are available and the network of comparisons is adequately connected, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to compare adverse effects and tolerability across interventions.
Claim 4review objectivesupports2026Source 1DOIPubMed

The protocol aims to systematically compare adverse-effect type and frequency, tolerability, and acceptability across non-invasive brain stimulation techniques and mental disorders.

Quoted textsource-backed
This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the type and frequency of adverse effects, tolerability, and acceptability across different brain stimulation techniques and mental disorders.
Claim 5application potentialsupports2025Source 4DOIPubMed

Non-invasive brain stimulation shows potential for treating drug-resistant epilepsy.

Claim 6burden statementsupports2025Source 4DOIPubMed

Epilepsy affects more than 50 million individuals worldwide.

Claim 7clinical needsupports2025Source 4DOIPubMed

About one-third of epilepsy patients develop drug resistance.

Claim 8clinical potentialsupports2025Source 3DOIPubMed

The growing evidence base suggests that newer non-invasive brain stimulation techniques could transform treatment of psychiatric conditions and support integration into clinical practice.

Claim 9combination therapy potentialsupports2025Source 4DOIPubMed

The review suggests that non-invasive brain stimulation alone or in combination with pharmacological therapy is a promising method for patients with epilepsy.

Claim 10comparative therapeutic potentialsupports2025Source 4DOIPubMed

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques including TMS, tDCS, and TUS have emerged as promising alternatives for epilepsy management.

Claim 11limitation statementsupports2025Source 4DOIPubMed

Clinical application of non-invasive brain stimulation in epilepsy is limited by variability in stimulation protocols and patient responsiveness.

Claim 12mechanism scopesupports2025Source 2DOIPubMed

Non-invasive brain stimulation modalities including TPS use electric currents or acoustic waves to induce and modulate neuroplasticity in humans.

Quoted textsource-backed
Non-invasive brain stimulations (NIBS), such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial alternating current stimulation, transcranial focused ultrasound, and transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS), employ electric currents or acoustic waves to induce and modulate neuroplasticity in humans.
Claim 13mechanism statementsupports2025Source 4DOIPubMed

Non-invasive brain stimulation methods modulate brain activity and have fewer side effects than drug therapy.

Claim 14regional adoptionsupports2025Source 3DOIPubMed

In South Asia, particularly in India, use of non-invasive brain stimulation treatment methods has notably increased.

Claim 15research geographysupports2025Source 3DOIPubMed

Research into non-invasive neuromodulation in South Asia has expanded significantly but remains predominantly centered in India.

Claim 16therapeutic trendsupports2025Source 3DOIPubMed

Non-invasive brain stimulation has been increasingly used as a therapeutic modality for neuropsychiatric disorders in recent decades.