Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (Tdcs) on Pain Intensity, Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by joint synovitis and damage to the surrounding cartilage and soft tissues. In this study, it was assumed that stimulation of the prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has reduced pain intensity in the rheumatoid arthritis patients and improved anxiety and depression outcomes. Methods: The current research was a semi-experimental design that involved a pre-test, post-test and a one-month follow-up with a control group The statistical population included all men and women diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who referred to the Rheumatology Department of Tehran's Family and Shariati Hospitals in 2024. A total of thirty individuals were selected through available sampling and then randomly assigned to either the experimental and control groups. Anodal tDCS was applied to stimulate the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), while cathodal tDCS was employed to inhibit the right DLPFC. Participants were assessed before-after and in the one-month follow-up period using the McGill Chronic Pain Index, and the Beck Depression and Anxiety Scale. Data analysis was conducted utilizing repeated measures analysis of variance and was performed with SPSS-16. Results: The findings showed that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) significantly reduced pain and anxiety levels in both the post-test and one-month follow-up, with P-values less than 0.05. Regarding depression, the post-test results were also significant (p<0.05), but in the one-month follow-up, this effect was no longer significant (p>0.05). In contrast, the control group exhibited little variation across all three phases. Conclusion: The results show that tDCS has a greater effect in reducing pain, anxiety and depression symptoms compared to placebo and is able to reduce inflammation and improve the quality of life of volunteers through prompt medical care and more compliance with treatment orders to reduce disease activity or even reach the recovery is complete.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".