Home-based Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) for the Management of Psychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Background:

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique increasingly recognized for its therapeutic potential in psychiatric disorders. Recent advances have enabled its administration in home settings, potentially increasing accessibility, reducing costs, and overcoming logistical barriers to in-clinic care. This scoping review systematically maps the preliminary evidence on home-based tES interventions for psychiatric disorders, while also assessing their feasibility, safety, and methodological trends.

Collection and Analysis of Data:

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and Scopus, covering publications from 2000 to 2024. Eligible studies examined the use of home-based tES (transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS], transcranial alternating current stimulation [tACS]) for the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Extracted data included study characteristics, stimulation protocols, monitoring approaches, outcomes, and reported challenges. Forty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 open-label studies, and 12 case series or case reports. These studies encompass various psychiatric conditions, with depressive disorder and mild cognitive impairment/dementia being the most frequently investigated. The majority of the studies utilized tDCS, often with remote supervision or digital support.

Conclusions:

Our review suggests high feasibility, good adherence, and minimal adverse effects, with potential symptom improvement across various disorders. However, small sample sizes, heterogeneity in protocols, and limited long-term data restrict the generalizability of results. Larger, methodologically rigorous trials are needed to establish efficacy, optimize stimulation parameters, and inform standardized guidelines for safe at-home tES use. Integration with telehealth systems and digital therapeutics may further enhance its scalability.

Keywords

Home-based neuromodulation non-invasive brain stimulation psychiatric disorders tACS tDCS transcranial electrical stimulation

Psychiatric disorders such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety-related conditions contribute significantly to the global burden of disease, with many individuals experiencing chronic symptoms and functional impairment despite receiving standard treatments.^1,2 Conventional therapeutic modalities, including pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, are often limited by suboptimal adherence, treatment resistance, and accessibility barriers. In recent years, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, particularly transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), have emerged as promising adjunctive or alternative strategies in managing these disorders.

The tES techniques include transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), which modulate cortical excitability by applying low-intensity electrical currents via scalp electrodes.^3,4 Newer emerging tES modalities include transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), which acts via the application of randomly fluctuating current across a frequency range that may improve the sensitivity of neurons to weaker signals, and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), which applies direct current in the form of pulses to modulate cortical excitability.^5,6 The standard tES setup includes two electrodes placed over target scalp regions, secured with saline-soaked sponges or conductive gel. The current intensity typically ranges between 1 and 2 mA, with each session lasting 20–30 minutes. The effects may depend on both the polarity and duration of the stimulation, as well as the underlying brain state.^4,7 Among these, tDCS has been the most extensively studied for psychiatric indications. When administered repeatedly over multiple sessions, tES has demonstrated the potential to alleviate symptoms in conditions such as depression, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, with a favorable safety profile and minimal side effects.^8–10

Recent technological advancements have enabled the development of portable, user-friendly, and remotely monitored tES devices, paving the way for home-based administration. This innovation addresses several critical challenges in psychiatric care, including limited access to specialized clinics, stigma associated with in-person treatments, and high drop-out rates. Home-based tES has the potential to increase adherence and continuity of care by empowering patients to self-administer treatment in familiar and convenient settings. Moreover, tele-supervision frameworks and safety monitoring protocols have evolved to ensure the feasibility, safety, and regulatory compliance of at-home use.¹¹

While the clinical utility of clinic-based tES is increasingly supported by randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, the evidence base for home-based tES remains nascent and scattered across varying study designs and patient populations.⁹ Given the growing interest in decentralized and personalized treatment models in mental health care, it is crucial to systematically map the existing literature on the use of home-administered tES in psychiatric disorders. A comprehensive synthesis will help identify the scope of clinical applications, effectiveness across diagnostic categories, common stimulation parameters, implementation practices, and prevailing knowledge gaps.

Accordingly, this scoping review aims to explore and summarize the current landscape of home-based tES interventions for treating psychiatric conditions. Specifically, we examine the study characteristics, clinical outcomes, stimulation protocols, modes of administration, safety considerations, and disorder-specific findings. By consolidating and contextualizing this emerging evidence, this review seeks to inform future clinical practice, guide research priorities, and support the development of scalable and accessible neuromodulation strategies in psychiatry. In this context, the present scoping review primarily aims to explore and summarize the current landscape of home-based tES interventions in treating psychiatric conditions. Specifically, we examine the study characteristics, clinical outcomes, stimulation protocols, modes of administration, safety considerations, and disorder-specific findings. By consolidating and contextualizing this emerging evidence, this review further seeks to inform future clinical practice, guide research priorities, and support the development of scalable and accessible neuromodulation strategies in psychiatry.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.¹² as outlined in Figure 1 (See supplementary online material for PRISMA-ScR checklist). The review was initiated in February 2025 and ended in April 2025.

Figure 1.

ADHD: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; BED: Binge eating disorder; MCI: Mild cognitive impairment; OCD: Obsessive-compulsive disorder; PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in two electronic databases— MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Scopus—covering all publications up to 31 December 2024. The search strategy utilized a combination of free-text terms and Boolean operators to capture relevant studies. The search terms included: (“at home” OR “domiciliary” OR “home-based” OR “home administered” OR “remotely supervised” OR “home treatment”) AND (“transcranial direct current stimulation” OR “tDCS” OR “tES” OR “transcranial electrical stimulation” OR “transcranial alternating current stimulation” OR “tACS”). The search was restricted to articles published in the English language (Details in supplementary online material). References of relevant articles and reviews were also manually screened to identify additional eligible studies not captured in the initial search.

Eligibility Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (a) original research articles; (b) investigated the use of home-based tES (including tDCS or tACS) for the treatment or management of primary psychiatric disorders (as defined by DSM-5 or ICD-11); and (c) involved human participants. Studies focusing solely on neurological conditions (e.g., stroke, chronic pain, or epilepsy), animal models, or healthy individuals were excluded. Additionally, opinion papers, editorials, and review articles were excluded from this review.

Study Selection

The review was conducted using the Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Duplicate records were initially identified and removed automatically by Covidence, followed by manual verification by the reviewers to identify and remove any remaining duplicates. Subsequently, two independent reviewers (the first author and the second author) screened all identified titles and abstracts for relevance. Full-text articles were subsequently retrieved for studies meeting the initial eligibility criteria or where relevance could not be determined from the abstract alone. Disagreements regarding study inclusion were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

After removing duplicates, a total of 352 unique records were identified. Following title and abstract screening, 244 articles were excluded due to irrelevance (e.g., studies not involving home-based tES, studies not addressing psychiatric disorders, or review/opinion articles). The remaining 108 articles were assessed in full text. An additional 65 studies were excluded at this stage. Ultimately, 43 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final synthesis (Supplementary Figure 1).¹³

The extracted data were organized and synthesized descriptively, focusing on study design, population characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, stimulation protocols, remote supervision mechanisms, outcome measures, and reported efficacy and safety outcomes.

Results

A total of 43 studies investigating home-based tES for psychiatric disorders were included in the review (Table 1).^14–56 Of these, 19 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs),^{15,21,22,24,26,29,31,34,36,39,41,42,46,49–51,53,54,56} 12 were open-label studies,^{20,27,32,33,35,37,38,40,43,45,47,52} and the remaining 12 were case reports or case series.^{14,16–19,23,25,28,30,44,48,55} Sixteen studies focused specifically on depressive disorders,^{22–24,27,28,30,31,33,34,37,38,43,45,46,51,56} while four examined bipolar depression,^19,26,47,52 and one included participants with both unipolar and bipolar depression.²⁰ Additional studies addressed other psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions: one study targeted individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and co-morbid depression,⁴⁹ and a case series included treatment-resistant depression along with bipolar affective disorder (BPAD) and fibromyalgia.¹⁸ Schizophrenia was the focus of four studies,^14,17,44,48 two studies evaluated binge eating disorder (BED),^50,53 and a single study explored the utility of tES in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD),³⁶ attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),²⁹ post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),³⁵ and Prader-Willi syndrome with intellectual disability.¹⁶ Furthermore, 10 studies focused on MCI and various forms of dementia, such as AD, vascular dementia, and frontotemporal dementia (Figure 1).^{15,21,25,32,39–42,54,55}

Table 1.

Studies on Home-based tES in Psychiatry.

Study Details	Administered By	Device Details	Prior Training Details	Other Safety Designs	TES Type	Improvement/Remarks
Andrade et al., 2013 Indication: Schizophrenia (treatment-resistant AVH) Study type: CR N: 1	Administered by a relative who was a medical professional	Indigenous device (Zeebeetronics, Bangalore, India)	NA	NA	tDCS	90% improvement
André et al., 2016 Indication: Vascular Dementia Study type: SBCRT N:21	NA	Neuroconn GmbH, Ilmenau, Germany	NA	NA	tDCS	Visual short-term memory, executive control, and verbal working memory showed significant improvement in cognitive training combined with verum tDCS
Azevedo et al., 2017 Indication: Prader-Willi syndrome & severe intellectual disability Study type: CR N: 1	Administered by a trained professional at home	Not mentioned	NA	NA	tDCS	48.6% improvement on the hyperphagia questionnaire and 58.4% improvement on the ABC
Schwippel et al., 2017 Indication: Schizophrenia (treatment-resistant multimodal hallucination) Study type: CR N: 1	Self-administered	CE-certified stimulator (Neuroconn GmbH, Ilmenau, Germany)	The patient was thoroughly instructed to correctly mount the electrodes and operate the stimulation device. After multiple sessions of supervised tDCS, self-application was allowed	Readmission after 18 months for a comprehensive evaluation to ensure the safety of long-term tDCS	tDCS	No improvement in multimodal hallucinations after stimulation. However, improvements in cognitive measures were noted
Fugedy et al., 2017 Indication: 1. TRD; 2. Fibromyalgia; 3. BPAD, Borderline, self-harm, drug addiction in a pregnant lady Study type: CS N:3	Self-administered with Skype supervision	Protocols were individualized and subsequently modified as a result of the patient’s response and need for additional treatment as the therapeutic benefits waned with time	Proficiency in self-administering was accomplished within the first week	NA	tDCS	All three patients improved with the tDCS treatment, especially in the quality of life and functional status
Clayton et al., 2018 Indication: BPAD-depression and MS Study type: CR N:1	Remotely supervised	NA	NA	NA	tDCS	The patient received sessions along with cognitive remediation. Improvement in mood and cognitive symptoms was noted
Alonzo et al., 2019 Indication: Unipolar and bipolar depression Study type: OL N: 34	Self-administered with remote supervision	Soterix 1×1 tDCS mini-CT investigational device (Soterix Medical Inc., New York, USA)	The baseline visit involved a demonstration of the tDCS device and procedure, followed by training in preparing the equipment, operating the device, and administering the session. After competency assessment, domiciliary tDCS was set up with remote video observation of the first three sessions, followed by video monitoring as and when required	Stimulation parameters were pre-programmed into the device at the research center by staff, including stimulation intensity, duration, the total number of sessions, and single-use activation codes for each session were provided before the session	tDCS	Mood improved significantly from baseline (27.47 on MADRS) to 1 month after the end of acute treatment (15.48) (p <.001)
Im et al., 2019 Indication: AD Study type: DBRCT N: 18	Caregivers	YDS-301N device (Ybrain Inc., Seongnam, Korea)	During the initial session, the research nurse provided training for setting up and applying tDCS	Daily administration is restricted to a single session. Upon return of the device, the stored logs were reviewed by the investigators	tDCS	Improvement in both global cognition and language was observed with true tDCS
Brooks et al., 2021 Indication: Depression and/or Anxiety + subjective cognitive complaints Study type: DBRCT N: 26	Self-administered	Magstim/Neu- ronika HDC-Kit device	Group training. 5 one-hour group sessions followed by a competency assessment. Training video was made available with the contact of the training coordinator provided for troubleshooting	Weekly review of daily self-reported treatment logs to assess for adverse effects	tDCS	Significant improvement in delayed recall, mindfulness, and social roles
Borrione et al., 2021 Indication: MDD Study type: CS N: 5	Self-administered	Flow^TM (Flow Neuroscience, MalmÖ, Sweden)	NA	NA	tDCS	Four out of five were treatment responders
Mota et al., 2021 Indication: Depression in TLE Study type: DBRCT N: 26	Self- administered	Home-based tDCS device developed at Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre	Participants were trained on the first day of evaluation, which also involved a demonstration by the participants	The device had a fixed number of sessions with a 16-hour safety interval between two consecutive sessions. Also, participants were provided with a video and a step-by-step list. Remote supervision on request	tDCS	tDCS was not effective for depressive symptoms in TLE
Bréchet et al., 2021 Indication: AD Study type: CR N:2	Caregivers	StarstimSS32 (Neuroelectrics Corp.)	Caregivers received comprehensive training in tACS administration, which included detailed instructions on the stimulation kit, supervised sessions with participants with AD, and proper equipment handling. Competency was assessed to ensure independent handling and administration of tACS sessions	The Starstim control software offered step-by-step guidance for device operation. Caregivers were also provided with a paper-based manual. Caregivers had the option to video conference with study staff in real time, and the Neuroelectrics online portal enabled continuous real-time monitoring of sessions	Gamma tACS (HD)	Improvement in the memory index score
Lee et al., 2022 Indication: Bipolar depressive episodes Study type: DBRCT N: 64	Self-administered	MIND STIM (Ybrain Inc., Seoul, South Korea).	Patients were trained using an instruction manual and video for using tDCS. Additionally, during the initial stimulation at the hospital, it was confirmed whether the patients could correctly use the device, and the research team addressed any queries they had	All patients were retrained on using the tDCS device during their follow-up visits	tDCS	No difference between true or sham tDCS in terms of improvement in depressive symptoms
Woodham et al., 2022 Indication: MDD Study type: OL N: 26	Self-administered	Neuroelectrics Starstim 8 system (three participants) and Flow Neuroscience tDCS device (23 participants)	NA	A research team member was present either onsite (for the Neuroelectrics Starstim 8 system) or online (Flow Neuroscience tDCS device). As needed, participants could interact with team members for support	tDCS	Significant improvement in HAM-D score
Oh et al., 2022 Indication: MDD Study type: SBRCT N: 45	Self-administered	YDS-301; Ybrain Inc., Seongnam, Korea	Instructions on how to use the device were provided to patients prior to use by the research nurse	During four visits (at baseline, 2nd week, 4th week, and 6th week), tDCS sessions were administered by a staff nurse. tDCS device was operated using an application which stored information regarding the sessions, which provided a means to check if the device was used as indicated	tDCS	A significant improvement in BDI was noted in both groups, with a significantly higher improvement in the active group. No difference between the two groups in HAM-D and MADRS
Cappon et al., 2022 Indication: MDD Study type: CS N: 3	Administered by caregivers	Starstim-Home Kit (Neuroelectrics Corp.)	HSL remote training and support program comprises a training curriculum and remote practice sessions (minimum three sessions)	Real-time monitoring and on-request remote assistance were provided. Also, the device can be used only during a specified time slot as programmed	tDCS	Improvement in MADRS score with an average reduction of 59% from baseline at 1-month follow-up, along with improvement in HDRS, BDI, and Q-LES-QSF
Tejada et al., 2022 Indication: PTSD with chronic pain Study type: OL N: 16	Self-administered with televideo supervision	Soterix Medical 1x1 tDCS mini-CT model 1601-LTE	Training for self-administration of tDCS was provided via home-based telehealth	Real-time monitoring	tDCS	Post-tDCS session, participants performed a prolonged exposure task. Significant improvement in PTSD symptoms post-treatment was noted, along with improvement in pain interference
Leffa et al., 2022 Indication: ADHD Study type: DBRCT N: 64	Self-administered	Home-based tDCS device developed at Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre	Instruction for using the device was provided at baseline	Daily reminder messages were sent to improve adherence to treatment	tDCS	Significant improvement in inattention was noted
Sobral et al., 2022 Indication: Depressive and anxiety symptoms, patients with major depression, dysthymia, illness anxiety disorder, OCD, and anxiety disorders Study type: CS N: 7	Self-administered	Flow^TM (Flow Neuroscience, Malmö, Sweden)- self- administered tDCS with a smartphone app (flow depression) for psychotherapy	Training to use the device was provided by a clinical psychologist certified in tDCS	NA	tDCS	Improvement in depressive symptoms, as measured by the MADRS, was observed in five out of seven patients. Similarly, anxiety symptoms showed improvement in five out of six patients, based on the STAI-Trait
Grønil et al., 2022 Indication: AD Study type: OL N: 8	Caregivers	Sooma tDCS stimulator	Participants and their caregivers were trained by a qualified psychiatrist, followed by a practice session	Home visits to check tDCS feasibility and side effects	tDCS	No significant effect was noted
Charvet et al., 2023 Indication: MDD Study type: OL N: 16	Self-administered	Soterix Medical 1x1 tDCS mini-CT model (pre-programmed)	Training was provided for the use of the tDCS device, along with assessing the tolerability to tDCS during the baseline visit	Stimulation parameters were pre-programmed and single-use activation codes for each session were provided prior to the session. Adverse effects associated with tDCS were reported using the ElectraRx online platform	tDCS	A significant reduction in depressive symptoms was noted at week 2, with incremental improvement noted at the end of the intervention. Overall, the response rate was 88%, and the remission rate was 81%
Kumpf et al., 2023 Indication: MDD Study type: DBRCT N: 11	Self-administered	CE-certified stimulator (Neuroconn GmbH, Ilmenau, Germany)	NA	After each tDCS session, the device automatically gets locked for the next 16 hours to avoid any repeat stimulation	tDCS	Significant reduction in MADRS scores in the active arm
Perera et al., 2023 Indication: OCD Study type: DBRCT N: 25	Self-administered	Custom-built BrightStim device	Training and Competency assessment for administering stimulation independently were done under the supervision of an experienced investigator	During the intervention, remote supervision was provided via telecommunication	alpha- tACS	Significant reduction in YBOCS scores post-active intervention compared to sham
Koutsomitros et al., 2023 Indication: MDD Study type: OL N: 20	Self-administered	PlatoWork 2.0 tDCS headsets (PlatoScience ApS, Denmark)	Individual 20-minute in-person training session by a certified tES practitioner with a digital copy of the device manual	Asynchronous supervision of session data within a 24-hour time frame by trained clinicians	tDCS	Significant reduction in BDI scores in the active arm compared to TAU (psychotherapy)-response rates of 50% and remission rates of 75%
Oh et al., 2023 Indication: MDD Study type: OL N: 61	Self-administered	Home-based tDCS equipment (YMS- 201B; Ybrain Inc.)	Training for the use of the device was administered after the screening procedure	Pre-programmed protocol, along with activation of equipment once/day	tDCS	Significant improvement was noted with a remission rate of ~60%
Satorres et al., 2023 Indication: mNCD Study type: SBRCT N: 33	Trained technicians	HDC stimulator (Newronika TM, Milan, Italy)	NA	NA	tDCS	Improvements in global cognitive function, including immediate and delayed memory and learning, were observed with active tDCS
Cappon et al., 2023 Indication: AD Study type: OL N: 8	Caregivers	Starstim- Home Kit (Neuroelectrics Corp.)	Patients and their caregivers underwent training that included a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the tACS equipment. This was followed by observation of tACS sessions and hands-on practice administering stimulation, both with and without support from research staff. A competency assessment was conducted to ensure they could perform the procedure independently	Remote supervision was provided by research staff	Gamma tACS (HD)	Improvement in the memory index score was noted
Jones et al., 2023 Indication: aMCI Study type: RCT N: 27	Self-administered	Humm tACS device (humm, California, USA)	Application of the tACS patch was demonstrated briefly, with step-by-step written instructions also provided	NA	Theta tACS	Improvement in sustained attention and inhibitory control in tACS with the CCT group
Meléndez et al., 2023 Indication: AD Study type: SBRCT N: 18	Trained technicians	HDC stimulator (Newronika TM, Milan, Italy)	NA	NA	tDCS	The active tDCS group showed significant improvements in overall cognitive scores, as well as in immediate and delayed memory
Dragon et al., 2024 Indication: MDD Study type: OL N: 10	Self-administered	CE-certified DC-stimulator Mobile (Neuroconn GmbH, Ilmenau, Germany)	The first tDCS session was performed on an outpatient basis, wherein medical technical assistants trained participants on protocol and electrode placement	Daily video consultations ensured adherence to the protocol and proper electrode placement	tDCS	5 participants showed a response to tDCS
Le Bars et al, 2024 Indication: Schizophrenia Study type: CR N: 1	Parental supervision	Sooma Oy device (Helsinki, Finland, CE)	Training in the administration of tDCS was provided to the patient and her parents by a trained nurse	A cap was provided for electrode placement, with locations color-coded for accurate positioning, along with telephonic assistance by a trained nurse on a need basis	tDCS	Reduction in the AVH (16% on the AHRS scale)
Ruffini et al., 2024 Indication: MDD Study type: OL N: 34	Self-administered	Starstim-Home Kit (Neuroelectrics Corp.)	A structured training program was implemented to ensure proper use of the Starstim-Home Kit	Real-time remote video conferencing by study staff during device training and during the first three use sessions	tDCS	A significant reduction in MADRS score was observed, with a median percentage reduction of 64.5%, and a response rate of 72.7%
Borrione et al., 2024 Indication: MDD Study type: DBRCT N: 210	Self- administered	Flow neuroscience (Malmow, Sweden)	Instructions by study staff on administration	Nil	tDCS	No significant group differences were noted in HDRS-17
Ghazi-Noori et al., 2024 Indication: Bipolar depression Study type: OL N: 44	Self-administered	Flow Neuroscience tDCS device	Training for the use of the device through video conferencing	Remote supervision by a research team member via video conferencing	tDCS	Reduction in MADRS scores with response in 77.3% of participants and remission in 47.7% of participants. No treatment-related switch
Pathak et al., 2024 Indication: Schizophrenia Study type: CR N: 1	Family members	Indigenously developed standard device (WISER tES)	The patient received an initial 20 sessions of tDCS in the hospital. During this period, the family members were extensively trained in the administration of tDCS. The training involved observational learning, mannequin-based training for electrode placement, and assisted live-patient sessions. A competency assessment was performed to ensure adequate proficiency in administering tDCS	Video-based monitoring of sessions was conducted for the initial 3 days of home-based tDCS. On request, remote support was made available for subsequent sessions	tDCS	The improvement in AVH was sustained during the home-based tDCS period
Kim et al., 2024 Indication: MCI and depression Study type: DBRCT N: 37	Self- administered	MIND-D (YBrain, Republic of Korea)	tDCS administration training was conducted through a checklist	Session records were sent via the research smartphone to a server for remote monitoring and safety assessment	tDCS	No significant group differences were observed in terms of improvement in cognitive symptoms
Flynn et al., 2024 Indication: BED Study type: RCT N: 80	Self- administered	HDC Kit with MindCap™ by Newronika	NA	Tele-supervision of the sessions	tDCS	Reduction in binge eating episodes, eating disorder symptoms and related psychopathology between baseline and follow-up, relative to waitlist control
Gehrman et al., 2024 Indication: MDD Study type: TBRCT N: 255	Self- administered	Fisher-Wallace Stimulator, Model FW-200 tACS device	NA	The device automatically turns off after each session	tACS	No group differences were noted for BDI-II scores at 2 weeks. however, at 1-week and 4-week time points, tACS led to significant improvement compared to the sham group
Rezaei et al., 2024 Indication: Bipolar depression Study type: OL N:44	Self- administered	Flow Neuroscience tDCS device	A research team member conducted online real-time training	A research team staff member was present online during all the sessions	tDCS	Significant improvement in short-term verbal memory was noted at 6 weeks
Elkfury et al., 2024 Indication: BED Study type: DBRCT N: 40	Self- administered	Home-based tDCS device developed by research group	Instructions regarding the protocol, along with training for self-administration, were provided	Assistance was provided on request, along with weekly online check-ins to ensure proper device functioning	tDCS	tDCS, as well NCT, led to improvement in symptoms with no additional effect noted due to the combination of tDCS and NCT
Park et al., 2024 Indication: MCI Study type: DBCOS N: 12	Self-administered	YDS-301; Ybrain Inc., Seongnam, Korea	Training included a detailed step-by-step guide on device usage, structured around three checklists, and incorporated a competency assessment to evaluate proficiency	Remote monitoring and 24-hour online support were provided	tDCS	Improvements in both global cognition and response time were observed following true tDCS
Tippett et al., 2024 Indication: FTD Study type: CR N:1	Self-administered	Home-based tDCS (Ybrain Inc. YMS-201B+)	The patient was instructed on the administration of the device	NA	tDCS	tDCS combined with CCT was associated with improvement in overall cognitive scores, immediate recall, delayed recall and semantic processing
Woodham et al., 2025 Indication: MDD Study type: DBRCT N: 174	Self-administered	Flow FL-100 Neuroscience tDCS device	During the initial session, app-guided training was provided, with a focus on electrode placement	Real-time data and remote monitoring features enabled researchers to oversee participant compliance effectively	tDCS

ABC: Aberrant behavior checklist, AD: Alzheimer’s disease, ABMT: Attention bias modification training, ADHD: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, AHRS: Auditory hallucination rating scale, aMCI: Amnestic mild cognitive impairment, AVH: Auditory verbal hallucination, BED: Binge eating disorder, BDI: Becks’ depression inventory, BPAD: Bipolar affective disorder, CCT: Cognitive control training/computerized cognitive training, COS: Crossover study, CR: Case report, CS: Case series, DB: Double blind, FTD: frontotemporal dementia, HAM-D: Hamilton depression rating scale, HD: High definition, HDRS-17: Hamilton depression rating scale, MADRS: Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale, MCI: Mild cognitive impairment, MDD: Major depressive disorder, mNCD: Mild neurocognitive disorder, MS: Multiple sclerosis, NCT: Nutritional counseling therapy, OCD: Obsessive-compulsive disorder, OL: Open-label study, PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder, Q-LES-Q-SF: Quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire short form, RCT: Randomized controlled trial, SB: single blind, STAI: State-trait anxiety inventory, TB: Triple blind, tDCS: Transcranial direct current stimulation, tES: Transcranial electrical stimulation, TLE: Ttemporal lobe epilepsy, TRD: Treatment-resistant depression, YBOCS: Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale.

Regarding the stimulation modality, most studies employed tDCS, with only five using tACS.^{25,36,40,41,51} Stimulation intensities ranged from 1.5 to 3 mA, with session durations between 20 and 30 minutes. The montage differed depending on the disorder and targeted symptoms; however, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was the most frequently targeted region (Table 2). Devices varied widely, encompassing certified commercial units and indigenously developed systems.

Table 2.

tES Protocols Across Studies.

Author	Disorder	tES Type	Montage	Intensity	Duration	No. of Sessions
Andrade et al., 2013	Schizophrenia (treatment-resistant AVH)	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Left TPJ	1–3 mA	30 mins	Once to twice daily for 3 years
André et al., 2016	Vascular dementia	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right supraorbital area	2 mA	20 mins	Four sessions
Azevedo et al., 2017	Prader-Willi syndrome & severe intellectual disability	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	20 mins	Ten sessions (over 2 weeks)
Schwippel et al., 2017	Schizophrenia (treatment-resistant multimodal hallucination)	tDCS	Anode: Right DLPFC Cathode: Left TPJ	2 mA	20 min	Four hundred sessions over 18 months
Fugedy et al., 2017	1. TRD; 2. Fibromyalgia; 3. BPAD, borderline, self-harm, drug addiction in a pregnant lady	tDCS	NA	NA		NA
Clayton et al., 2018	BPAD-depression and MS	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC	2 mA	20 mins	40 sessions
Alonzo et al., 2019	Unipolar and bipolar depression	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right fronto-temporal cortex	2 mA	30 mins	Group 1: 20 sessions, or Group 2: 28 sessions.
Im et al., 2019	AD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	180 sessions (single session per day for 6 months)
Brooks et al., 2021	Depression and/or Anxiety + subjective cognitive complaints	tDCS	Anode: Fz Cathode: Iz	2 mA	30 mins	56
Borrione et al., 2021	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Twenty-one sessions over 6 weeks (initially once/day for 15 days, followed by twice weekly for the next 3 weeks)
Mota et al., 2021	Depression in TLE	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	20 mins	Twenty sessions
Bréchet et al., 2021	AD	Gamma tACS (HD)	Left angular gyrus	<2 mA	20 mins	Seventy sessions (5 days per week for 14 weeks)
Lee et al., 2022	Bipolar depressive episodes	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Forty-two sessions (once per day for 6 weeks)
Woodham et al., 2022	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Twenty-one sessions (five sessions per week for 3 weeks, followed by two sessions per week for 3 weeks)
Oh et al., 2022	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Thirty sessions (five sessions per week)
Cappon et al., 2022	MDD	tDCS	Anode: F3 Cathode: FZ, FC5, and FP1	1.75 mA	30 mins	Thirty-seven sessions (once daily sessions for 4 weeks, followed by nine sessions over the next 4 weeks)
Tejada et al., 2022	PTSD with chronic pain	tDCS	Anode: Primary motor cortex Cathode: Supraorbital region	2 mA	20 mins	Ten sessions over 2 weeks
Leffa et al., 2022	ADHD	tDCS	Anode: Right DLPFC Cathode: Left DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Twenty-eight sessions over 4 weeks
Sobral et al., 2022	Depression and anxiety symptoms, patients with major depression, dysthymia, illness anxiety disorder, OCD, and anxiety disorders	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Protocol 1: 18 sessions (10 sessions once daily for 2 weeks, followed by twice weekly sessions for 4 weeks) Protocol 2: 21 sessions (15 sessions once daily for 3 weeks, followed by twice weekly sessions for 3 weeks)
Grønil et al., 2022	AD	tDCS	Anode: Left Temporal lobe (T7) Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	One twenty sessions (single session per day for 4 months)
Charvet et al., 2023	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Acute intervention: 28 sessions (5 sessions/week for 6 weeks) followed by four tapering sessions (once/week).
Kumpf et al., 2023	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Thirty sessions (5/week for 6 weeks)
Perera et al., 2023	OCD	alpha- tACS	AFz and Iz	1.5 mA	30 mins	Intensive phase: 30 sessions (twice daily for 5 days/week for 3 weeks) Consolidation phase: Nine sessions (once daily for 3 days/week for 3 weeks)
Koutsomitros et al., 2023	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Twenty-one sessions (once/day)
Oh et al., 2023	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	A 30–42 sessions (once/day for 5–7 days/week for 6 weeks)
Satorres et al., 2023	mNCD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right frontal lobe	2 mA	20 mins	Ten sessions
Cappon et al., 2023	AD	Gamma tACS (HD)	Left angular gyrus	<2 mA	20 mins	Acute phase: 70–98 sessions (five to seven sessions per week for 14 weeks) followed by Hiatus phase: no sessions for 2–3 months, which was followed by taper phase: 2–3 sessions per week for 2–3 months
Jones et al., 2023	aMCI	Theta tACS	AF3 and AF4	1.5 mA	15 mins	Eight sessions (five daily sessions followed by one weekly session for 3 weeks)
Meléndez et al., 2023	AD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right frontal lobe	2 mA	20 mins	Five sessions
Dragon et al., 2024	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	20 mins	Thirty sessions (5/week for 6 weeks)
Le Bars et al., 2024	Schizophrenia	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Left TPJ	2 mA	20 mins	Ten sessions (twice daily for 5 days)
Ruffini et al., 2024	MDD	tDCS	Anode: AF3 & F3 Cathode: AF4 & T7	1.7 mA	30 mins	Twenty-eight sessions (once/day for 7 days per week over 4 weeks) The additional taper of nine sessions (three tDCS sessions once every other day, three tDCS sessions once every third day, three tDCS sessions once every fourth day)
Borrione et al., 2024	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Twenty-one sessions (once/day for 5 days per week for 3 weeks, followed by twice/week for the next 3 weeks)
Ghazi-Noori et al., 2024	Bipolar depression	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Twenty-one sessions (once/day for 5 days per week for 3 weeks, followed by twice/week for the next 3 weeks)
Pathak et al., 2024	Schizophrenia	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Left TPJ	2 mA	20 mins	Twenty sessions (twice daily for 10 days)
Kim et al., 2024	MCI and depression	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Thirty sessions (once/day for 5 days per week for 6 weeks)
Flynn et al., 2024	BED	tDCS	Anode: Right DLPFC Cathode: Left DLPFC	2 mA	20 mins	Ten sessions (one session/weekday over 2–3 weeks)
Gehrman et al., 2024	MDD	tACS	Bilateral inferior and middle temporal gyrus	2 mA	20 mins	Twenty-eight sessions (twice daily for 4 weeks)
Rezaei et al., 2024	Bipolar depression	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Twenty-one sessions (five sessions a week for 3 weeks, then two sessions a week for another 3 weeks)
Elkfury et al., 2024	BED	tDCS	Anode: Right DLPFC Cathode: Left DLPFC	2 mA	20 mins	Intensive phase: 20 sessions (5 days/week) and a maintenance phase: Three sessions (1 day/week)
Park et al., 2024	Indication: MCI	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Fourteen sessions (once per day for 2 weeks)
Tippett et al., 2024	FTD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	NA	NA	Fourty-six sessions over 10 weeks
Woodham et al., 2025	MDD	tDCS	Anode: Left DLPFC Cathode: Right DLPFC	2 mA	30 mins	Seventy-two sessions (36 during RCT phase and 36 during open-label). Each phase consisted of five tDCS sessions per week for 3 weeks, followed by three tDCS sessions per week for 7 weeks.

AD: Alzheimer’s disease, ADHD: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, aMCI: Amnestic mild cognitive impairment, AVH: Auditory verbal hallucination, BED: Binge eating disorder, BPAD: Bipolar affective disorder, FTD: Frontotemporal dementia, HD: High definition, MCI: Mild cognitive impairment, MDD: Major depressive disorder, mNCD: Mild neurocognitive disorder, MS: Multiple sclerosis, OCD: Obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder, tDCS: Transcranial direct current stimulation, tES: Transcranial electrical stimulation, TLE: Temporal lobe epilepsy, TRD: Treatment-resistant depression.

Using the Oxford CEBM scale,⁵⁷ 19 randomized controlled trials were classified as Level 2b evidence, while the remaining studies (open-label trials, case series, and case reports) were rated as Level 4. A substantial proportion of the studies (24 out of 43) were open-label or case series/case reports without blinding. Furthermore, 12 of the case series/case reports included only 1–8 participants.

Therapeutic Outcome in Psychiatric Disorders

Schizophrenia

In schizophrenia, four case reports described the use of home-based tDCS in individuals with treatment-resistant auditory verbal hallucinations. Improvements were noted in some cases, such as a 16% reduction in hallucinations after 10 sessions,⁴⁴ and up to 90% symptom relief with maintenance tDCS over a period of 2–3 years.¹⁴ Another case noted sustained benefits following 20 sessions,⁴⁸ although one report found no sustained improvement despite 400 sessions.¹⁷

Depression

For depressive disorders, a substantial number of studies reported symptom reductions following home-based tDCS, typically involving 18–72 sessions.^{20,22,23,27,28,30,31,33,34,37,38,43,45,51,56} Among the RCTs assessing the effect of tDCS on unipolar depression, four RCTs reported improvement in symptoms,^22,31,34,56 while two RCTs failed to demonstrate significant improvement, including one involving participants with co-morbid temporal lobe epilepsy.^24,46 In contrast, all the case reports, case series, and open-label studies reported significant improvement in depressive symptoms in unipolar disorder. In the only RCT using alpha tACS, no significant improvement was noted.⁵⁰

In bipolar depression, mood symptoms improved in several case reports and open-label studies,^19,20,47 along with cognitive gains.^19,52 However, an RCT found no difference between active and sham conditions.²⁶

The MCI and dementia: In patients suffering from MCI and dementia, most studies have focused on MCI and AD, except for two studies, one each on vascular dementia (VD)¹⁵ and Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD).⁵⁵ The number of sessions ranged from four sessions¹⁵ to 180 sessions (over 6 months).²¹ Of the RCT studies administering tDCS to participants with MCI and AD,^{21,39,42,49,54} three reported improvement across various domains, including global cognition, immediate and delayed memory, and language. However, one of the RCTs reported improvement in cognitive symptoms.⁴⁹ Moreover, one of the open-label studies with tDCS sessions administered daily for 4 months reported no change in cognitive measures.³² In patients with VD,¹⁵ an RCT reported significant improvement in short-term memory and verbal working memory with tDCS. While in FTD,⁵⁵ a case report noted significant improvement in overall cognition, along with immediate and delayed recall, after tDCS administration. Among the three studies administering tACS, two were non-RCTs (an open-label study and a case report) and used gamma-frequency stimulation.^25,40 Both studies reported improvements in memory deficits. Similarly, in an RCT using theta-frequency stimulation,⁴¹ improvement in memory deficits was observed.

OCD

In OCD, one RCT found a significant reduction in both obsessions and compulsions after 39 sessions of individualized home-based tACS.³⁶

PTSD

In an open-label trial involving patients with PTSD and chronic pain, 10 sessions of home-based tDCS yielded significant clinical improvement.³⁵

ADHD

A double-blind RCT in adults with ADHD found that 28 sessions of tDCS over 4 weeks led to improvements in attention regulation.²⁹

BED

For BED, two RCTs demonstrated reductions in binge eating episodes after 10–23 sessions.^50,53

Intellectual Disability

In a case report on Prader-Willi syndrome with intellectual disability, approximately 50% improvement was reported in food cravings and behavioral disturbances.¹⁶

Training, Supervision, and Administration

The majority of studies (33 out of 43) highlighted the importance of prior training before initiating home-based tES. In contrast, 10 studies did not provide any information regarding training protocols.^{14–16,19,23,27,34,39,42,50} Training protocols varied across studies; however, they consistently included step-by-step demonstrations of device operation and the proper administration of tES by trained personnel. In addition, several studies provided detailed instruction manuals, video tutorials, and live supervision—either in-person or remote—during the initial sessions. Some also mandated that users successfully complete competency assessments before being allowed to administer tES independently.^{20,25,30,36,40,48,54} Only a few studies (8 out of 43) specifically report daily monitoring of sessions,^{27,35,36,43,47,50,52,56} while others describe it as on-demand or as-needed online supervision. The majority of studies reported self-administration of tES at home, often under remote supervision.^{17–20,22–24,26–29,31,33–38,41,43,45–47,49–56} However, in 11 studies, the stimulation was administered by a clinician or a caregiver, specifically in cases of schizophrenia,^14,44,48 MCI and dementia,^{21,25,32,39,40,42} Prader-Willi syndrome,¹⁶ and one study on major depressive disorder.³⁰

Tolerability and Adverse Effects

Across studies, tES was generally well tolerated, with most adverse effects (AEs) being mild and transient (Table 3). Among 43 studies, seven did not report AEs,^{21,35,42,44,49,53,55} while the rest reported AEs. Most of the studies used a structured questionnaire, such as the tDCS adverse event questionnaire, to assess the AEs, either administered after each session^{27,46–48,52,56} or at predetermined time points.^29,45 Some of the studies relied on subjective self-reporting of AEs.^38,43,50,51 In a few studies, although AEs were assessed, the frequency of assessment as well as the method of reporting was unclear.^{14,16,19,31,36,39} The most frequently observed AEs with tDCS include tingling sensations, skin redness, itching, and mild burning or heat sensations at the electrode sites. These effects are typically experienced during or immediately following stimulation and are often localized to the scalp. For instance, Alonzo et al. (2019) found that tingling (22.3%), burning (45.3%), redness (22.6%), and itching (18.5%) were among the most common AEs, while other studies, such as those by Cappon et al.,³⁰ Rezaei et al.,⁵² and Ghazi-Noori et al.⁴⁷ reported similar findings with high rates of mild sensations under the electrodes. Several studies, such as those conducted by Azevedo et al.,¹⁶ Schwippel et al.,¹⁷ and Pathak et al.,⁴⁸ reported no adverse events, further underscoring the general safety of the intervention. Nevertheless, some studies reported more notable reactions. For example, Mota et al.²⁴ observed burning sensations in 63.7% of participants in the active group, while Leffa et al.²⁹ reported scalp burns and dizziness, leading to participants’ withdrawal from the study. Rare yet significant events included mild electrical burns,³¹ skin lesions,³⁴ and a single reported fall.²² Although these events were uncommon, they highlight the importance of correct electrode application and monitoring, particularly during the ramp-up phase. In terms of psychological effects, some studies^26,56 tracked mood changes and psychiatric symptoms, with no evidence of treatment-emergent mania or hypomania. One study,²⁶ did report suicidal ideation and an episode of aggression in both active and sham groups, indicating no clear causal relationship with tDCS.

Similarly, in tACS studies,^{25,36,40,41,51} no major AEs were noted. Minor AEs, such as phosphenes, tingling sensations, itching, headaches, and sleepiness, were observed. Overall, most studies found that AEs were not serious and did not interfere with treatment.

Table 3.

Tolerability and Adverse Effects.

Author and Year	Tolerability and Adverse Effects
Andrade et al., 2013	Occasional intra-session tingling managed by transient amplitude reduction. Overall, well tolerated
André et al., 2016	No AEs reported
Azevedo et al., 2017	No AEs reported
Schwippel et al., 2017	No AEs reported
Fugedy et al., 2017	Minor side effects reported
Clayton et al., 2018	Minimal and transient tingling and itchiness at the site of the electrode
Alonzo et al., 2019	The most commonly reported AEs were mild to moderate tingling (22.3%) or burning/heat sensation during stimulation (45.3%) and redness at the electrode sites (22.6%), followed by itching (18.5%), and fatigue (9.5%). Other AEs reported were headache, light-headedness, blurred vision, pain, and dizziness
Im et al., 2019	No information
Brooks et al., 2021	7/12 participants in the active arm reported AEs, mainly redness, itching, tingling, and headache associated with electrode placement and during the first 30 seconds of active stimulation (i.e., ramp-up period). Fall was noted in one participant
Borrione et al., 2021	All patients tolerated tDCS without serious AEs or complications
Mota et al., 2021	Overall, tDCS was well tolerated. The most common AEs in the active arm were burning (63.7%), tingling (36.4%), headache (36.4%), and somnolence (18.2%). The common AEs in the sham arm were burning (41.6%), headache (25.0%), and itching (25.0%)
Bréchet et al., 2021	Mild AEs were noted, including tingling and burning sensations.
Lee et al., 2022	No treatment-emergent switch to mania. Four participants reported suicidal ideations between weeks 2–4 and 4–6, and one patient had an episode of aggressive behavior during weeks 4–6 (no difference between active and sham groups)
Woodham et al., 2022	The most common AEs were skin redness, tingling, itching or mild burning sensation, and headache. 84.9% of AEs were mild. No hypo/mania was reported
Oh et al., 2022	One reported mild, transient headache. Two of the 20 participants in the active group showed a mild electrical burn, which improved with treatment
Cappon et al., 2022	All reported AEs were mild and transient. The most frequently reported adverse effects were sensations under the electrodes, including tingling (18.4% of sessions) and itching, as well as post-stimulation sleepiness (3.51%), scalp redness (0.88%), and neck pain (29.82%)
Tejada et al., 2022	No information
Leffa et al., 2022	One participant in the sham tDCS group withdrew from the trial due to an AEs (neck pain), while two withdrew from the trial in the active tDCS group owing to depressive symptoms and dizziness. In the active arm, the most common AEs were tingling (75%), skin redness (59.4%), headache (53.1%), scalp burn (50%), neck pain (21.9%) and scalp pain (28.1%). In the sham arm, the most common AEs were tingling (81.3%), skin redness (46.9%), headache (34.4%), scalp burn (31.3%), sleepiness (31.3%), mood change (31.3%), and neck pain (15.6%)
Sobral et al., 2022	Stimulation was well tolerated and accepted, with a mild tingling sensation and scalp discomfort being the most common AEs
Grønil et al., 2022	Mild tingling sensations were reported
Charvet et al., 2023	The tDCS intervention caused no serious or treatment-limiting adverse effects
Kumpf et al., 2023	The study was stopped due to five AEs in four patients (one patient had two AEs). All five AEs were skin lesions and occurred in patients in the active group, which means that four of the five patients in the active group had skin lesions. Based on the impedance measurements, no clear user misapplication could be attributed to the cause of the skin lesions
Perera et al., 2023	Minor AEs reported were phosphene perception (20%), tingling sensation (16%), itching and headache (8% each)
Koutsomitros et al., 2023	No serious AEs were reported, with only 14 instances of mild to moderate side effects and two instances of scalp pain rated as severe, out of a total of 420 stimulation sessions (not reported by 12 out of 20 patients)
Oh et al., 2023	53% of the participants reported AEs, which were mild and transient. The most common adverse effects were a burning sensation (25.7%), thermal burns (9%), and headaches (6%)
Satorres et al., 2023	Except for mild tingling, no other AEs were reported
Cappon et al., 2023	Mild and transient AEs, which included tingling or itching sensations and sleepiness
Jones et al., 2023	Mild AEs were reported
Meléndez et al., 2023	Not reported
Dragon et al., 2024	One patient (10%) experienced tingling throughout the entire treatment. Another patient (10%) felt tingling during the first week of treatment. One of ten patients (10%) reported mild redness on the left side of their head after treatments 5 and 6. The number of side effects was not related to the number of sessions. No serious AEs
Bars et al., 2024	Not reported
Ruffini et al., 2024	The most common AEs were headache (5.9%). Other AEs included erythema, paresthesia, burning sensation, sinusitis, and myalgia. No serious AEs were reported
Borrione et al., 2024	All patients tolerated tDCS without serious AEs or complications
Ghazi-Noori et al., 2024	The most common AEs were tingling (83.5%), skin redness (40.6%), itching (29.3%) and burning sensation (26.5%). 90.6% of AEs related to tDCS were mild
Pathak et al., 2024	The sessions were well tolerated with no AEs noted
Kim et al., 2024	No information
Flynn et al., 2024	Both active and sham groups reported few tDCS-related AEs, and in all cases, AEs were mild
Gehrman et al., 2024	Overall, no serious AEs were reported. Skin discomfort led to discontinuation in one participant
Rezaei et al., 2024	The most common AEs were tingling (83.5%), skin redness (40.6%), itching (29.3%), and a burning sensation (26.5%), which were mild
Elkfury et al., 2024	No information
Park et al., 2024	Three participants reported skin burns
Tippett et al.,2024	No information
Woodham et al., 2025	The most common AEs were skin redness, tingling, itching, or mild burning sensation and headache. 84.9% of reports were rated as mild. There were no episodes of hypomania or mania as measured by the YMRS

AE: Adverse effects, tDCS: Transcranial direct current stimulation, YMRS: Young Mania Rating Scale.

Discussion

Over the last decade, there has been a steady and increasingly systematic interest in the development and implementation of home-based or remotely supervised tDCS protocols, particularly for individuals with chronic or treatment-resistant neuropsychiatric disorders. The rationale behind this shift stems from several factors: the logistical limitations of in-clinic stimulation protocols, the need for prolonged and frequent sessions to optimize treatment, and the growing demand for patient-centered, accessible care, particularly among populations facing mobility, cognitive, or geographic barriers. The studies reviewed here span diverse clinical populations, including schizophrenia, major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar depression, ADHD, OCD, MCI dementia, BED, and PTSD, and demonstrate a wide array of implementation strategies aimed at enabling safe, effective, and scalable delivery of neuromodulation in non-clinical settings. Notably, no eligible trials investigated generalized anxiety or pediatric populations, underscoring significant evidence gaps in the anxiety-spectrum and developmental conditions.

One of the central features of these studies is the emphasis on feasibility and safety, which are foundational to the acceptability of home-based tDCS. In many cases, researchers and clinicians developed detailed protocols to ensure that devices could be operated safely by patients or caregivers. This included multi-tiered training procedures, often beginning with in-person or virtual instructional sessions that provided both didactic information and hands-on demonstrations. Several studies employed practice sessions using mannequin heads or dummy devices before transitioning to live use. For example, Charvet et al.^11,33 and Perera et al.³⁶ structured training to include both individual and caregiver education, verification of correct electrode placement, and test sessions supervised via video conferencing tools. Studies such as that by Andrade et al.¹⁴ and Pathak et al.⁴⁸ involved long-term treatment administered by trained family members in low-resource settings, demonstrating that even without advanced telemonitoring infrastructure, safety could be maintained through careful education and adherence to conservative protocols.

The equipment used in these studies ranged from simple indigenous devices, typically seen in Indian case series and open-label studies, to sophisticated CE-certified or FDA-cleared devices such as those developed by Neuroelectrics, Soterix Medical, and Flow Neuroscience. While indigenous devices allowed for broader access and adaptability in resource-limited settings, certified systems offered pre-programmed parameters, locked protocols, and integrated compliance monitoring. Several devices required session unlock codes provided by the research team, thereby ensuring structured dosing and preventing overuse. Others incorporated cloud-based data logging, remote monitoring dashboards, or real-time video supervision to track adherence and manage technical or clinical issues as they arose. These features were particularly prominent in studies conducted in the US and Europe, where regulatory oversight and institutional infrastructure supported high-tech implementations.

Across these various systems, the stimulation parameters were relatively consistent, centering on anodal stimulation at the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) with current intensities of 1.5–2 mA for 20–30 minutes per session. Treatment schedules typically involved daily sessions (Monday through Friday) over periods of 2–8 weeks, often with optional tapering phases or maintenance sessions that extended beyond the initial intervention period. Some studies administered up to 56 sessions in conditions such as treatment-resistant depression²² or up to 3 years in chronic schizophrenia,¹⁴ where long-term modulation might be necessary to achieve or sustain symptom improvement.

Clinical outcomes varied by condition but were generally favorable, particularly in affective disorders. In MDD, several studies demonstrated significant symptom reduction and high rates of response and remission. For instance, in Charvet et al.³³, which examined remotely supervised home-based tDCS for MDD, 88% of participants met response criteria, and 81% achieved remission, a striking result suggesting that home-based administration can be as effective, if not more so, than traditional in-clinic interventions. Similarly, Ruffini et al.⁴⁵ found a median reduction of 64.5% in MADRS scores across a naturalistic outpatient sample using a CE-certified home kit. Studies targeting PTSD,³⁵ ADHD,²⁹ and OCD³⁶ also reported moderate improvements, although results were more heterogeneous and often limited by small sample sizes or lack of control conditions.

In schizophrenia, home-based tDCS has been explored as an adjunctive treatment for persistent symptoms such as auditory hallucinations and negative symptoms. A case report¹⁴ by Andrade et al. detailed the use of caregiver-administered tDCS over an extended period of more than 3 years. This case report, while uncontrolled, documented clinically meaningful improvements in symptom severity and social functioning, with minimal side effects. This also underscored the practical importance of caregiver involvement in populations with cognitive or functional impairments that preclude independent use of the device. Other schizophrenia-focused studies, such as those by Pathak et al.,⁴⁸ employed both left DLPFC and temporoparietal junction montages, adapting stimulation targets based on symptom profiles (e.g., targeting auditory hallucinations versus cognitive symptoms). Despite promising results, the need for rigorous RCTs remains, as most data in this domain still derive from open-label or case-series designs.

The application of home-based tES, particularly tDCS and tACS, has shown promise in addressing cognitive deficits in patients with MCI and various forms of dementia. While the majority of studies have focused on MCI and AD, limited but encouraging evidence also exists for other dementia subtypes such as VD and FTD.^15,55 The number of stimulation sessions varied considerably across studies. Notably, five out of ten studies administered tES over extended durations ranging from 2.5 to 6 months.^{21,25,32,40,55} While most reported improvements in cognitive measures, outcome variability persists, evident in one 4-month study³² that found no significant cognitive benefits. Similarly, all three identified tACS studies—two using gamma and one using theta frequency—demonstrated memory enhancement.^25,40,41 These findings, though preliminary, underscore the therapeutic potential of tES in neurodegenerative conditions. The limited efficacy of current pharmacological treatments, including sensitivity to psychotropic medications, combined with the need for long-term interventions and the generally favorable tolerability of non-invasive brain stimulation, makes home-based tES an attractive and feasible adjunctive therapy.

Importantly, safety outcomes across all studies were highly reassuring. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the trials reviewed. Minor side effects, such as transient scalp tingling, skin redness, or mild headaches, were generally self-limiting and did not necessitate treatment discontinuation. Compliance was also high in most studies, particularly those with robust supervision frameworks. Real-time or asynchronous monitoring, regular follow-up, and easy access to technical support likely contributed to these outcomes, in addition to the inherent tolerability of low-intensity tDCS itself.

Overall, the accumulated evidence supports the conclusion that home-based or remotely supervised tDCS is both feasible and safe across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions. The variability in clinical outcomes—particularly in conditions like ADHD and schizophrenia—points to a need for more standardized protocols, larger and better-controlled trials, and deeper exploration of patient-specific factors that may influence treatment response. Nevertheless, these studies collectively demonstrate that with appropriate training, monitoring, and device safeguards, home-based neuromodulation represents a viable and potentially transformative approach to long-term management of chronic mental health conditions. As technology advances and digital health platforms evolve, such interventions are poised to play a larger role in personalized, accessible psychiatric care.

Across the 43 studies included, there was a wide variation in study design and methodological rigor. Nineteen randomized controlled trials were classified as Level 2b evidence according to the Oxford CEBM scale. The remaining 24 studies were rated as Level 4, comprising 12 open-label trials and 12 case reports or case series. The open-label trials typically lacked blinding, and the case series and case reports were descriptive in nature, with no control groups. Several methodological limitations were common across studies. Sample sizes were generally small, with a median of 24 participants. Many open-label and case series studies enrolled only a few participants, with 12 case reports/series including between 1 and 8 individuals. In addition, most studies lacked sham controls, limiting the ability to account for placebo effects. The majority of studies employed short follow-up periods, often limited to immediate or short-term post-intervention assessments, providing little insight into the durability of effects. A large proportion relied on self-reported outcome measures, which are more susceptible to subjective bias and expectancy effects compared to objective measures.

At-home neuromodulation raises important ethical and regulatory considerations that extend beyond clinical efficacy.^4,11,58 Informed consent must be robust, ensuring participants understand the potential risks, benefits, and their responsibilities, particularly about competence in self-administration, as well as avoiding any unintended use. Devices should be equipped with tamper-proof locks and pre-set safety parameters to prevent unauthorized adjustments.¹¹ Data privacy and security are critical, requiring compliance with relevant regulations such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) for secure handling of health information.⁵⁸ Regulatory oversight varies across jurisdictions, with frameworks such as the US Food and Drug Administration’s 510(k) clearance process and the European Union’s Medical Device Regulation (MDR) setting distinct approval and monitoring requirements. Clear, jurisdiction-specific guidance is essential to ensure safe, ethical, and compliant use of at-home tES devices.

Best Practice Supervision Models for Home-based tES

To enhance safety, adherence, and protocol fidelity, practical supervision models include:

Synchronous video supervision: Live video sessions for electrode placement verification, adherence, and immediate troubleshooting; combined with structured remote training and competency assessment.

Asynchronous photo verification: Participants submit time-stamped photos of electrode placement and device setup for clinician review prior to stimulation

Caregiver-assisted administration: A trained caregiver supervises the electrode placement and session initiation; the caregiver receives initial training and periodic retraining and competency assessment.

This scoping review has several strengths, including the use of a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases. Moreover, the methodology was based on the PRISMA-ScR guideline to ensure reproducibility. A key strength of this review is its inclusion of a wide range of psychiatric disorders, providing a broad overview of the current literature on home-based tDCS and highlighting the critical gaps that can inform future research. However, this review has some limitations. The inclusion was restricted to published English-language studies. Additionally, the descriptive approach and variability among the included studies limit the ability to perform comparisons or draw definitive conclusions. Furthermore, the literature search was limited to two major databases, which, although widely used, may not have captured all relevant studies. While reference lists of included articles and related reviews were manually screened to identify additional sources, the possibility of missing pertinent literature cannot be ruled out.

Conclusions

Home-based tES represents a promising and innovative approach to expanding access to non-invasive neuromodulation therapies for psychiatric disorders. While preliminary findings are encouraging, the clinical uptake will depend on generating more robust, standardized, and long-term evidence.

Future development of home-based tES is likely to be shaped by advances in digital health technologies. Computer vision–based mobile applications can support precise electrode placement through real-time visual guidance. Adaptive AI algorithms may facilitate individualized dose finding, adjusting stimulation parameters based on treatment response and tolerability. Integration with wearable devices—such as EEG headbands or physiological sensors—could enable on-demand stimulation triggered by relevant neurophysiological or symptom changes. These innovations, coupled with secure cloud-based monitoring, hold the potential to enhance precision, scalability, and safety in at-home neuromodulation.

Call to Action

Researchers: Conduct multi-site randomized controlled trials with ≥6-month follow-up, including factorial designs (e.g., 1 mA vs. 2 mA) and cost-effectiveness implementation studies.

Clinicians: Adopt standard remote monitoring procedures and contribute to adverse event registries to improve safety surveillance.

Regulators: Develop risk-stratified device guidance, harmonizing standards across jurisdictions (e.g., US FDA 510(k) and EU MDR).

With coordinated action, home-based tES can evolve from promising innovation to a safe, scalable tool in psychiatric care.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

HP is supported by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) - Wellcome Trust India Alliance (IA/CRC/19/1/610005). VSS acknowledges the support of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Investigator-initiated research grant (2022-1614), NIMHANS Intramural Research grant and Life Sciences Research Board (LSRB/01/15001/LSRB-416/LS&BD/2024). GV acknowledges the support of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) - Wellcome Trust India Alliance (IA/CRC/19/1/610005).

Data Sharing Statement

The data will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. Proposals should be submitted to suhasedu@yahoo.in.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration Regarding the Use of Generative AI

No part of this article was written or generated by a generative AI tool. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the published article.

Ethical Approval

As this study was a scoping review based on previously published literature, it did not involve human participants or identifiable data. Therefore, ethical approval was not required.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Vos

, Lim

, Abbafati

, . Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 2020; 396: 1204–1222.

World Health Statistics. https://www.who.int/newsitem/20-05-2022-world-health-statistics-2022 (2022, accessed 11 April 2025 ).

Nitsche

, Cohen

, Wassermann

, . Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008. Brain Stimul, 2008; 1: 206–223.

Antal

, Alekseichuk

, Bikson

, . Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol, 2017; 128: 1774–1809.

Reed

and Cohen

Kadosh R

. Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) mechanisms and its effects on cortical excitability and connectivity. J Inherit Metab Dis, 2018; 41: 1123–1130.

Malekahmad

, Frazer

, Zoghi

, . Transcranial pulsed current stimulation: A scoping review of the current literature on scope, nature, underlying mechanisms, and gaps. Psychophysiology, 2024; 61: e14521.

Bikson

, Esmaeilpour

, Adair

, . Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature. Brain Stimul, 2019; 12: 1349–1366.

Kuo

M-F

, Paulus

and Nitsche

. Therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation with direct currents (tDCS) in neuropsychiatric diseases. Neuroimage, 2014; 85 Pt 3: 948–960.

Lefaucheur

J-P

, Antal

, Ayache

, . Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin Neurophysiol, 2017; 128: 56–92.

10.

Fregni

, El-Hagrassy

, Pacheco-Barrios

, . Evidence-based guidelines and secondary meta-analysis for the use of transcranial direct current stimulation in neurological and psychiatric disorders. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol, 2021; 24: 256–313.

11.

Charvet

, Shaw

, Bikson

, . Supervised transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at home: A guide for clinical research and practice. Brain Stimul, 2020; 13: 686–693.

12.

Tricco

, Lillie

, Zarin

, . PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018; 169: 467–473.

13.

Haddaway

, Page

, Pritchard

, . PRISMA 2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams with interactivity for digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev, 2022; 18: e1230.

14.

Andrade

. Once- to twice-daily, 3-year domiciliary maintenance transcranial direct current stimulation for severe, disabling, clozapine-refractory continuous auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. J ECT, 2013; 29: 239–242.

15.

André

, Heinrich

, Kayser

, . At-home tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves visual short-term memory in mild vascular dementia. J Neurol Sci, 2016; 369: 185–190.

16.

Azevedo

, Gomes

, Trevizol

, . At-home transcranial direct current stimulation in Prader-Willi syndrome with severe intellectual disability: A case study. J ECT, 2017; 33: e29.

17.

Schwippel

, Wasserka

, Fallgatter

, . Safety and efficacy of long-term home treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in a case of multimodal hallucinations. Brain Stimul, 2017; 10: 873–874.

18.

Fugedy

. Domiciliary transcranial direct current stimulation over a two-year period for treatment-refractory psychiatric and neurological conditions: A three-case report. Brain Stimul, 2017; 10: e30.

19.

Clayton

, Howard

, Dobbs

, . Remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation after ECT improves mood and cognition in a patient with multiple sclerosis: A case study. J ECT, 2018; 34: e15.

20.

Alonzo

, Fong

, Ball

, . Pilot trial of home-administered transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of depression. J Affect Disord, 2019; 252: 475–483.

21.

, Jeong

, Bikson

, . Effects of 6-month at-home transcranial direct current stimulation on cognition and cerebral glucose metabolism in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Stimul, 2019; 12: 1222–1228.

22.

Brooks

, Oughli

, Kamel

, . Enhancing cognition in older persons with depression or anxiety using mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and tDCS: Pilot randomized clinical trial results. Mindfulness, 2021; 12: 3047–3059.

23.

Borrione

, Klein

, Razza

, . Use of app-based psychological interventions combined with home-use tDCS for major depressive disorder: A case series. J Affect Disord, 2021; 288: 189–190.

24.

Mota

, Amaral de Castro

, Riedel

, . Home-based tDCS for depression and anxiety in temporal lobe epilepsy: Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Front Integr Neurosci, 2021; 15. DOI: 10.3389/fnint.2021.753995.

25.

Bréchet

, Yu

, Biagi

, . Patient-tailored, home-based non-invasive brain stimulation for memory deficits in dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. Front Neurol, 2021; 12: 598135.

26.

Lee

, Lee

, Jang

, . Efficacy and safety of daily home-based tDCS as adjunct treatment for bipolar depressive episodes: Double-blind randomized clinical trial. Front Psychiatry, 2022; 13. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.969199.

27.

Woodham

, Rimmer

, Young

, . Adjunctive home-based transcranial direct current stimulation treatment for major depression with real-time remote supervision: An open-label, single-arm feasibility study with long-term outcomes. J Psychiatr Res, 2022; 153: 197–205.

28.

Sobral

, Guiomar

, Martins

, . Home-based tDCS in dual active treatments for depression and anxiety: A case series. Front Psychiatry, 2022; 13. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.947435.

29.

Leffa

, Grevet

, Bau

CHD

, . Transcranial direct current stimulation vs sham for the treatment of inattention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: The TUNED randomised clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 2022; 79: 847–856.

30.

Cappon

, den Boer

, Jordan

, . Safety and feasibility of tele-supervised home-based transcranial direct current stimulation for major depressive disorder. Front Aging Neurosci, 2022; 13: 765370. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.765370

31.

, Jang

K-I

, Jeon

, . Effect of self-administered transcranial direct stimulation in patients with major depressive disorder: A randomised, single-blinded clinical trial. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci, 2022; 20: 87–96.

32.

Grønli

, Daae

Rasmussen I

, Aslaksen

, . A four-month home-based tDCS study on patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurocase, 2022; 28: 276–282.

33.

Charvet

, George

, Charlson

, . Home-administered transcranial direct current stimulation is a feasible intervention for depression: An observational cohort study. Front Psychiatry, 2023; 14: 1199773.

34.

Kumpf

, Palm

, Eder

, . tDCS at home for depressive disorders: An updated systematic review and lessons learned from a prematurely terminated randomised controlled pilot study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2023; 273: 1403–1420.

35.

Hernandez-Tejada

, Cherry

, Rauch

SAM

, . Management of chronic pain and PTSD in veterans with tDCS + prolonged exposure: A pilot study. Mil Med, 2022; usac200.

36.

Perera

MPN

, Bailey

, Murphy

, . Home-based individualised alpha transcranial alternating current stimulation improves symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder: Preliminary evidence from a randomised, sham-controlled clinical trial. Depress Anxiety, 2023: e9958884.

37.

Koutsomitros

, Schwarz

, van der Zee

, . Home-administered transcranial direct current stimulation with asynchronous remote supervision in the treatment of depression: Feasibility, tolerability and clinical effectiveness. Front Psychiatry, 2023; 14: 1206805.

38.

, Jeon

, Ha

, . Effect of home-based self-administered transcranial direct stimulation in patients with mild to moderate major depressive disorder: A single-arm, multicentre trial. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci, 2023; 21: 271–278.

39.

Satorres

, Escudero

Torrella J

, Real

, . Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation in mild neurocognitive disorder due to possible Alzheimer’s disease: A randomised, single-blind, controlled-placebo study. Front Psychol, 2022; 13: 1071737.

40.

Cappon

, Fox

, den Boer

, . Tele-supervised home-based transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) for Alzheimer’s disease: A pilot study. Front Hum Neurosci, 2023; 17: 1168673.

41.

Jones

, Ostrand

, Gazzaley

, . Enhancing cognitive control in amnestic mild cognitive impairment via at-home non-invasive neuromodulation in a randomised trial. Sci Rep, 2023; 13: 7435.

42.

Meléndez

, Satorres

, Pitarque

, . Transcranial direct current stimulation intervention in Alzheimer’s disease and its follow-up. J Alzheimers Dis, 2023; 96: 1685–1693.

43.

Dragon

, Abdelnaim

, Weber

, . Treating depression at home with transcranial direct current stimulation: A feasibility study. Front Psychiatry, 2024; 15: 1335243.

44.

Le Bars

, Bulteau

, Bonnot

, . Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation in schizophrenia: Systematic literature review, a teenager case report with cost-utility analysis. Schizophr Res, 2024; 267: 441–443.

45.

Ruffini

, Salvador

, Castaldo

, . Multichannel tDCS with advanced targeting for major depressive disorder: A tele-supervised at-home pilot study. Front Psychiatry, 2024; 15: 1427365.

46.

Borrione

, Cavendish

, Aparicio

LVM

, . Home-use transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of a major depressive episode: A randomised clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 2024; 81: 329–337.

47.

Ghazi-Noori

A-R

, Woodham

, Rezaei

, . Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation in bipolar depression: An open-label treatment study of clinical outcomes, acceptability and adverse events. Int J Bipolar Disord, 2024; 12: 30.

48.

Pathak

, Suhas

, Nayok

, . Home-based tDCS for schizophrenia: Exploring the feasibility of a standard operating procedure. Asian J Psychiatry, 2024; 99: 104150.

49.

Kim

, Park

, Kim

, . Home-based, remotely supervised, 6-week tDCS in patients with both MCI and depression: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Clin EEG Neurosci, 2024; 55: 531–542.

50.

Flynn

, Campbell

and Schmidt

Concurrent self-administered transcranial direct current stimulation and attention bias modification training in binge eating disorder: Feasibility randomised sham-controlled trial. BJPsych Open, 2024; 10: e118.

51.

Gehrman

, Bartky

, Travers

, . A fully remote randomised trial of transcranial alternating current stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry, 2024; 85: 23m15078.

52.

Rezaei

, Woodham

, Ghazi-Noori

A-R

, . Effect of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cognitive functioning in bipolar depression: An open-label, single-arm acceptability and feasibility study. Int J Bipolar Disord, 2025; 13: 11.

53.

Elkfury

, Antunes

, Tocchetto

, . Effect of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation combined with nutritional counselling therapy on binge eating disorder symptoms: A randomised pilot trial. Braz J Psy chiatry. Epub ahead of print 25 September 2024. DOI: 10.47626/1516-4446-2024-3776.

54.

Park

, Chung

, Oh

, . Effect of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A two-week intervention. Yonsei Med J, 2024; 65: 341–347.

55.

Tippett

, Neophytou

, Tao

, . Long-term, home-based transcranial direct current stimulation coupled with computerised cognitive training in frontotemporal dementia: A case report. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis, 2024; 16: 11795735241258435.

56.

Woodham

, Selvaraj

, Lajmi

, . Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation treatment for major depressive disorder: A fully remote phase 2 randomised sham-controlled trial. Nat Med, 2025; 31: 87–95.

57.

OCEBM Levels of Evidence. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence (accessed 31 July 2025 ).

58.

Bikson

, Ganho-Ávila

, Datta

, . Limited output transcranial electrical stimulation 2023 (LOTES-2023): Updates on engineering principles, regulatory statutes and industry standards for wellness, over-the-counter, or prescription devices with low risk. Brain Stimul, 2023; 16: 840–853.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.03 MB

0.36 MB

0.00 MB