Evidence Hub

Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with cognitive-behavioral interventions for depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sham-controlled randomized trials

Da Silva OAFS, Pereira SIDS, Mert A, de Aguiar DR, Nogueira MB, Prilip GA, de Freitas MBL, Monteiro DC et al.

Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026

321 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Depressive disorders are a prevalent psychiatric condition; major depressive disorder (MDD) specifically affects approximately 5.7% of adults worldwide and is associated with high levels of disability and disease burden. Although effective interventions are available, some patients do not achieve adequate remission or response rates. In such cases, clinicians often combine interventions to enhance outcomes. This systematic review evaluated whether adding transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to cognitive-behavioral interventions (CBIs) reduces depressive symptoms and improves response and remission rates versus sham tDCS in a sample of patients with depressive disorders.

Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Ovid from inception to October 2025. The primary outcome was reduction in depressive symptoms; response and remission rates were secondary outcomes. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) were used as effect measures for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively, within a random-effects model. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) selected according to the PICO framework were included.

Results: Ten RCTs comprising 321 patients were included. Primary analysis showed no significance between intervention and control in a sample with MDD as primary diagnosis (SMD: -0.05; 95% CI: -0.44 to 0.34; I² = 26%). Secondary analysis did not demonstrate a significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 321 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free