↓ Skip to main content

Rethinking Clinical Trials of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Participant and Assessor Blinding Is Inadequate at Intensities of 2mA

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rethinking Clinical Trials of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Participant and Assessor Blinding Is Inadequate at Intensities of 2mA
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0047514
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil E. O’Connell, John Cossar, Louise Marston, Benedict M. Wand, David Bunce, G. Lorimer Moseley, Lorraine H. De Souza

Abstract

Many double-blind clinical trials of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) use stimulus intensities of 2 mA despite the fact that blinding has not been formally validated under these conditions. The aim of this study was to test the assumption that sham 2 mA tDCS achieves effective blinding. A randomised double blind crossover trial. 100 tDCS-naïve healthy volunteers were incorrectly advised that they there were taking part in a trial of tDCS on word memory. Participants attended for two separate sessions. In each session, they completed a word memory task, then received active or sham tDCS (order randomised) at 2 mA stimulation intensity for 20 minutes and then repeated the word memory task. They then judged whether they believed they had received active stimulation and rated their confidence in that judgement. The blinded assessor noted when red marks were observed at the electrode sites post-stimulation. tDCS at 2 mA was not effectively blinded. That is, participants correctly judged the stimulation condition greater than would be expected to by chance at both the first session (kappa level of agreement (κ) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.47 p=0.005) and the second session (κ=0.77, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.90), p=<0.001) indicating inadequate participant blinding. Redness at the reference electrode site was noticeable following active stimulation more than sham stimulation (session one, κ=0.512, 95%CI 0.363 to 0.66, p<0.001; session two, κ=0.677, 95%CI 0.534 to 0.82) indicating inadequate assessor blinding. Our results suggest that blinding in studies using tDCS at intensities of 2 mA is inadequate. Positive results from such studies should be interpreted with caution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 2%
Italy 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 235 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 19%
Student > Master 43 17%
Researcher 35 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 35 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 16%
Neuroscience 36 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 4%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 64 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,939,169
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#24,641
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,210
of 177,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#455
of 4,757 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,757 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.