Trial Outcomes & Findings for The Effects of HD-tDCS on Cognitive Bias Among Individuals With Social Anxiety Symptoms (NCT NCT07099521)
NCT ID: NCT07099521
Last Updated: 2025-12-10
Results Overview
Assessment: Dot probe task;Indicator of Attention Avoidance. Dot probe task is a common experimental paradigm for measuring attention bias. After appearance of a fixed cross in the center of the computer screen, a pair of faces appear side by side. Then, a probe appears on the location previously occupied by one of the two faces. Participants were asked to response the location of the probe as quickly as possible and press the appropriate keys to answer. This study used the trail-level bias score (TL-BS) as a measure of the main outcomes of this task. TL-BS is an indicator of reaction time (RT), calculated by subtracting contiguous pairs of congruent trials (probe and emotional face appeared on the same location of the screen) from incongruent trials (probe and emotional face appeared on the opposite location of the screen).Negative scores represent avoidance of these stimuli. TL-BSnegative indicates the average value of TL-BSs \<0ms
COMPLETED
NA
74 participants
This task was administered at baseline (Day 1) and immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5).
2025-12-10
Participant Flow
Participants were randomly assigned to either tDCS or sham groups using a computer-generated randomization table, with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants remained blinded to treatment conditions throughout the intervention period. Researchers only received allocation information immediately prior to procedure implementation.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
tDCS group
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
37
|
37
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
34
|
32
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
3
|
5
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
tDCS group
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Incompeleted stimulus program
|
1
|
0
|
|
Overall Study
Non-social anxiety symtpoms
|
0
|
1
|
|
Overall Study
Extreme values
|
2
|
4
|
Baseline Characteristics
The Effects of HD-tDCS on Cognitive Bias Among Individuals With Social Anxiety Symptoms
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
tDCS Group
n=34 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham Group
n=32 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Total
n=66 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
20.62 Number
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.94 • n=4 Participants
|
19.88 Number
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.91 • n=50 Participants
|
20.26 Number
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.95 • n=681 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
22 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=50 Participants
|
44 Participants
n=681 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
12 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=50 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=681 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Han ethnicity
|
32 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
32 Participants
n=50 Participants
|
64 Participants
n=681 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Others ethnicity
|
2 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=50 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=681 Participants
|
|
Residence
Urban
|
21 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
20 Participants
n=50 Participants
|
41 Participants
n=681 Participants
|
|
Residence
Rural
|
13 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
12 Participants
n=50 Participants
|
25 Participants
n=681 Participants
|
|
Only-child status
Yes
|
13 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=50 Participants
|
23 Participants
n=681 Participants
|
|
Only-child status
No
|
21 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=50 Participants
|
43 Participants
n=681 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: This task was administered at baseline (Day 1) and immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5).Assessment: Dot probe task;Indicator of Attention Avoidance. Dot probe task is a common experimental paradigm for measuring attention bias. After appearance of a fixed cross in the center of the computer screen, a pair of faces appear side by side. Then, a probe appears on the location previously occupied by one of the two faces. Participants were asked to response the location of the probe as quickly as possible and press the appropriate keys to answer. This study used the trail-level bias score (TL-BS) as a measure of the main outcomes of this task. TL-BS is an indicator of reaction time (RT), calculated by subtracting contiguous pairs of congruent trials (probe and emotional face appeared on the same location of the screen) from incongruent trials (probe and emotional face appeared on the opposite location of the screen).Negative scores represent avoidance of these stimuli. TL-BSnegative indicates the average value of TL-BSs \<0ms
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=34 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=32 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Trial-level Bias Score (Negative)
Pre-test
|
-54.92 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 22.28
|
-48.45 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 17.96
|
|
Trial-level Bias Score (Negative)
Post-test
|
-44.29 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 16.79
|
-46.07 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 18.71
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: This task was administered at baseline (Day 1) and immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5)Assessment: Word-sentence association paradigm; Indicator of Negative interpretation bias. Word sentence association paradigm (WSAP) was used to assess the interpretation bias in youth with social anxiety. Following the appearance of a fixed cross (500ms), an ambiguous sentence describing the social situation would be presented in the center of the screen (2000ms). Then, a word would appear at random for 500ms: the word might imply a threatening interpretation (e.g., "boring" or "rejection"), or imply a benign one (e.g., "captivating" or "accepted"). Participants were asked to decide whether the word was related to the ambiguous sentence ("F" for relevant and "J" for irrelevant). This study calculated the proportion of threaten interpretations that participants endorsed as being related to the sentence （Endorsement rates of negative interpretations）, which was prescribed as the primary result of interpretation bias.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=34 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=32 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Endorsement Rates of Negative Interpretations
Pre-test
|
0.48 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.19
|
0.44 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.18
|
|
Endorsement Rates of Negative Interpretations
Post-test
|
0.41 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.21
|
0.44 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.22
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: This task was administered at baseline (Day 1) and immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5)Population: Please note that a total of 47 participants completed the memory bias tasks (25 in the tDCS group, and 22 in the sham group).
Assessments: recognition task; Indicator of Negative Memory bias. This study used free recall and recognition task to assess memory bias by the number of positive/negative words remembered. First, in the "encoding phase", after a short time for a fixed cross, words were presented randomly in turn . Participants were asked to read these words aloud and answer coding questions.After this phase, there was a 3-minute distraction task, during which participants were guided through 40 calculation problems. They were then given 2 minutes to freely recall the words that had appeared before, regardless of the order of the words. Next, they completed a recognition task. Recognition Accuracy was calculated as: (number of correctly recognized negative words) ÷ (total number of negative words presented).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=25 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=22 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Recognition Accuracy for Negative Words
Pre-test
|
0.84 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.11
|
0.82 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.13
|
|
Recognition Accuracy for Negative Words
Post-test
|
0.77 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.12
|
0.82 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.16
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: This task was administered at baseline (Day 1) and immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5)Assessments: Dot-probe task; Indicator of Attention Avoidance. Dot probe task is a common experimental paradigm for measuring attention bias. After appearance of a fixed cross in the center of the computer screen, a pair of faces appear side by side. Then, a probe appears on the location previously occupied by one of the two faces. Participants were asked to response the location of the probe as quickly as possible and press the appropriate keys to answer. This study used the trail-level bias score (TL-BS) as a measure of the main outcomes of this task. TL-BS is an indicator of reaction time (RT), calculated by subtracting contiguous pairs of congruent trials (probe and emotional face appeared on the same location of the screen) from incongruent trials (probe and emotional face appeared on the opposite location of the screen).Negative scores represent avoidance of these stimuli. Peak TL-BSnegative indicates the minimum TL-BS value.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=34 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=32 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Peak Trial-level Bias Score (Negative)
Pre-test
|
-189.32 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 79.33
|
-159.66 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 86.08
|
|
Peak Trial-level Bias Score (Negative)
Post-test
|
-133.09 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 66.52
|
-139.22 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 62.64
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: This task was administered at baseline (Day 1) and immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5)Assessments: Word-sentence association paradigm; Indicator of Negative interpretation bias. Word sentence association paradigm (WSAP) was used to assess the interpretation bias in youth with social anxiety. Following the appearance of a fixed cross (500ms), an ambiguous sentence describing the social situation would be presented in the center of the screen (2000ms). Then, a word would appear at random for 500ms: the word might imply a threatening interpretation (e.g., "boring" or "rejection"), or imply a benign one (e.g., "captivating" or "accepted"). Participants were asked to decide whether the word was related to the ambiguous sentence ("F" for relevant and "J" for irrelevant). This study recorded the response time and calculated the bias index (BI): threat BI = response times (reject threat - endorse threat) and benign BI = response times (endorse benign - reject benign).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=34 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=32 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Bias Score
Pre-test
|
-39.85 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 383.45
|
-92.98 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 459.47
|
|
Bias Score
Post-test
|
-80.72 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 363.52
|
45.72 Milliseconds
Standard Deviation 307.73
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: This task was administered at baseline (Day 1) and immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5)Assessments: free recall task; Indicator of negative memory bias. This study used free recall and recognition task to assess memory bias by the number of positive/negative words remembered. First, in the "encoding phase", after a short time for a fixed cross, words were presented randomly in turn . Participants were asked to read these words aloud and answer coding questions.After this phase, there was a 3-minute distraction task, during which participants were guided through 40 calculation problems. They were then given 2 minutes to freely recall the words that had appeared before, regardless of the order of the words. Next, they completed a recognition task. Recall Accuracy was calculated as: (number of correctly recall negative words) ÷ (total number of negative words presented).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=25 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=22 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Recall Accuracy for Negative Words
Pre-test
|
0.15 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.09
|
0.15 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.08
|
|
Recall Accuracy for Negative Words
Post-test
|
0.13 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.08
|
0.15 Proportion
Standard Deviation 0.09
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline (Day 1), immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5), and at a 4-week follow-up (Day 30).Assessments: the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) was used to identify participants with social anxiety and to assess changes in social anxiety symptoms before and after the tDCS intervention. The scale contains 24 items, each of which assesses two aspects of fear and avoidance, using a 4-point Likert scale ("0" means "never" and "3" means "severe"), for a total of 48 items. A higher score indicated more severe social anxiety. The score ranges from 0 to 144. The total score would be categorized into 5 severity levels: 0-54 (normal), 55-64 (moderate), 65-79 (marked), 80-94 (severe), and ≥95 (very severe). In this study, participants scoring between 55 and 95 were included. The LSAS has demonstrated good internal consistency across three assessments (Cronbach's alpha = 0.87-0.90), and acceptable test-retest consistency (r = 0.47-0.79, p \< 0.001).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=33 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=31 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Social Anxiety Symptoms
Follow-up
|
61.79 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.09
|
60.42 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.75
|
|
Social Anxiety Symptoms
Pre-test
|
72.7 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.8
|
66.94 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.72
|
|
Social Anxiety Symptoms
Post-test
|
63.39 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.77
|
63.52 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.89
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline (Day 1), immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5), and at a 4-week follow-up (Day 30).Assessments: the Spielberger Inventory - Trait (STAI-T). Trait anxiety was assessed using the Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory - Trait (STAI-T), which included 20 items rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 20 to 80 (1 = "not at all" to 4 = "very much"). A higher score indicates severe trait anxiety symptoms. In this study, the STAI-T demonstrated good internal and test-retest reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80-0.86; r = 0.69-0.79, p \< 0.001).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=33 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=31 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Trait Anxiety
Pre-test
|
39.74 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.42
|
42.87 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.95
|
|
Trait Anxiety
Post-test
|
36.55 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.25
|
41.45 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.40
|
|
Trait Anxiety
Follow-up
|
37.97 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.65
|
42.03 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.73
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline (Day 1), immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5), and at a 4-week follow-up (Day 30).Assessments: the Negative cognitive processing bias questionnaire; Indicator of self-report attention bias. Participants completed the Negative cognitive processing bias questionnaire (NCPBQ). The NCPBQ included 17 items divided into three subscales, along with three lie-detection items. Among it, the attention bias subscale includes 5 items (E.g., My attention is easily drawn to the tragic images on TV and is difficult to shift). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 ("disagree completely") to 5 ("agree completely"), with higher score indicating more severe cognitive bias. The score of attention bias subscale ranges from 5 to 25.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=33 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=31 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Attention Bias)
Pre-test
|
16.64 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 4
|
15.81 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.42
|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Attention Bias)
Follow-up
|
16.12 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.42
|
15.81 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.48
|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Attention Bias)
Post-test
|
16.64 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.20
|
15.58 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.36
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline (Day 1), immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5), and at a 4-week follow-up (Day 30).Assessments: the Negative cognitive processing bias questionnaire; Indicator of self-report interpretation bias. Participants completed the Negative cognitive processing bias questionnaire (NCPBQ). The NCPBQ included 17 items divided into three subscales, along with three lie-detection items. Among it, the interpretation bias subscale includes 5 items (E.g., If a new teacher is hard on me, I think it is because he sees me in a bad light and wants to get me in trouble). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 ("disagree completely") to 5 ("agree completely"), with higher score indicating more severe cognitive bias . The score of interpretation bias subscale ranges from 5 to 25.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=33 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=31 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Interpretation Bias)
Pre-test
|
15.39 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.99
|
16.74 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.43
|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Interpretation Bias)
Post-test
|
15.36 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.81
|
15.94 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.40
|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Interpretation Bias)
Follow-up
|
14.39 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.97
|
15.81 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.49
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline (Day 1), immediately after the last stimulation session (Day 5), and at a 4-week follow-up (Day 30).Assessments: the Negative cognitive processing bias questionnaire; Indicator of self-report memory bias. Participants completed the Negative cognitive processing bias questionnaire (NCPBQ). The NCPBQ included 17 items divided into three subscales, along with three lie-detection items. Among it, the memory bias subscale includes 4 items (E.g., I can easily remember the negative comments people make about me). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 ("disagree completely") to 5 ("agree completely"), with higher score indicating more severe cognitive bias . The score of memory bias subscale ranges from 5 to 20.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=33 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=31 Participants
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Memory Bias)
Follow-up
|
14.85 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.38
|
14.52 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.84
|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Memory Bias)
Pre-test
|
16.06 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.32
|
14.55 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.22
|
|
Negative Cognitive Bias (Memory Bias)
Post-test
|
16.09 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
14.77 Scores on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.79
|
Adverse Events
tDCS group
Sham group
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
| Measure |
tDCS group
n=34 participants at risk
Participants underwent 10 sessions of anodal (2mA, 20 minutes) HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
Sham group
n=32 participants at risk
Participants underwent 10 sessions of sham HD-tDCS over 5 days (2 times each day) targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Scalp pain
|
70.6%
24/34 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
84.4%
27/32 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Stabbing pain
|
91.2%
31/34 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
90.6%
29/32 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Itching
|
55.9%
19/34 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
53.1%
17/32 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Burning
|
70.6%
24/34 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
65.6%
21/32 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Skin redness
|
14.7%
5/34 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
6.2%
2/32 • After each stimulation session, participants completed an adverse event checklist to monitor tolerability and perceived stimulation. In other words, every participant underwent adverse event assessments from the first to the last intervention, for up to five consecutive days.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place