Effects of different electrical stimulation on depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
5 affiliations
- 1The Affiliated Mental Health Center of Kunming Medical University
- 2The Second Clinical Medical College, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine
- 3Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine
- 4The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University
- 5The Second School of Clinical Medicine and The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University
Abstract
Background: Depression is a prevalent psychiatric disorder characterised by persistent low mood and anhedonia, substantially impairing quality of life. Conventional treatments show variable efficacy and tolerability, with high post-discontinuation relapse rates. Electrical stimulation has emerged as an alternative intervention, but comparative efficacy and safety of different modalities remain uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to synthesise evidence and quantitatively compare electrical stimulation approaches for depression.
Methods: A systematic search of 13 databases was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to 16 July 2026. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE framework. Frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 18.0. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plot inspection, and sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of findings.
Results: A total of 33 RCTs involving 2,664 participants and nine electrical stimulation modalities were included. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that electrical stimulation was associated with a significantly improved clinical response rate (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16) and a reduction in depressive symptom severity (SMD = −0.90, 95% CI −1.27 to −0.54) among patients with depression, along with a favourable safety profile (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.49). However, therapeutic effects varied across modalities. Specifically, Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) ranked highest for improving the clinical response rate (SUCRA = 99.9%; OR = 4.12, 95% CI 3.08 to 5.16), whereas transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) ranked highest for reducing the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score (SUCRA = 71.3%; SMD = −1.70, 95% CI −2.80 to −0.60). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results.
Conclusions: Electrical stimulation is associated with improved clinical response rates and reduced depressive symptom severity in patients with depression, and is generally well tolerated. Among the modalities examined, taVNS demonstrated a relative advantage in improving clinical response, while tDCS showed a relative advantage in alleviating depressive symptom severity. However, given the low certainty of the evidence underpinning these findings, they require confirmation in larger, higher-quality randomised controlled trials.
Systematic Review Registration: [url], identifier CRD420251103264.
Related
- Comparative efficacy of electrical stimulation for post-stroke urinary incontinence: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Comparative effects of different magnetic stimulation modalities on upper limb motor function and activities of daily living in patients with stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation on Perioperative Stress and Inflammatory Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Efficacy of High‐Frequency Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Therapy for Depression With Insomnia Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials
- Comparative efficacy of digital health intervention delivery modalities on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in coronary heart disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{chai2026effects,
title = {{Effects of different electrical stimulation on depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis}},
author = {Jiajin Chai and Song Li and Junhao Huang and Shaoyan Yao and Lei Zhou and Xichen Chen and Fei Liu and Changliang Ji and Hanyu Chen and Shu Tan and Rui Li and Runjuan Ma and Shikun Li and Shouping Zhao},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1962608},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1962608/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Effects of different electrical stimulation on depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
AU - Jiajin Chai
AU - Song Li
AU - Junhao Huang
AU - Shaoyan Yao
AU - Lei Zhou
AU - Xichen Chen
AU - Fei Liu
AU - Changliang Ji
AU - Hanyu Chen
AU - Shu Tan
AU - Rui Li
AU - Runjuan Ma
AU - Shikun Li
AU - Shouping Zhao
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
JO - Frontiers in Psychiatry
DO - 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1962608
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1962608/full
AB - Background: Depression is a prevalent psychiatric disorder characterised by persistent low mood and anhedonia, substantially impairing quality of life. Conventional treatments show variable efficacy and tolerability, with high post-discontinuation relapse rates. Electrical stimulation has emerged as an alternative intervention, but comparative efficacy and safety of different modalities remain uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to synthesise evidence and quantitatively compare electrical stimulation approaches for depression. Methods: A systematic search of 13 databases was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to 16 July 2026. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE framework. Frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 18.0. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plot inspection, and sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of findings. Results: A total of 33 RCTs involving 2,664 participants and nine electrical stimulation modalities were included. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that electrical stimulation was associated with a significantly improved clinical response rate (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16) and a reduction in depressive symptom severity (SMD = −0.90, 95% CI −1.27 to −0.54) among patients with depression, along with a favourable safety profile (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.49). However, therapeutic effects varied across modalities. Specifically, Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) ranked highest for improving the clinical response rate (SUCRA = 99.9%; OR = 4.12, 95% CI 3.08 to 5.16), whereas transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) ranked highest for reducing the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score (SUCRA = 71.3%; SMD = −1.70, 95% CI −2.80 to −0.60). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. Conclusions: Electrical stimulation is associated with improved clinical response rates and reduced depressive symptom severity in patients with depression, and is generally well tolerated. Among the modalities examined, taVNS demonstrated a relative advantage in improving clinical response, while tDCS showed a relative advantage in alleviating depressive symptom severity. However, given the low certainty of the evidence underpinning these findings, they require confirmation in larger, higher-quality randomised controlled trials. Systematic Review Registration: [url], identifier CRD420251103264.
SN - 1664-0640
ER -