Trial Report [RCT] Evaluating the efficacy of repetitive anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive fatigue in long COVID. Mischke and Zaehle

[Yann04]

No abstract Provided.

Here’s an excerpt instead:

In this pre-registered (DRKS00031294) randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trial we assessed the efficacy of repetitive anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) in 40 long COVID patients with cognitive fatigue. Patients underwent four consecutive daily sessions of either 30 minutes active (1.5mA) or sham stimulation, with assessments before treatment, one day post-treatment, and at a one-month follow-up (Fig. 1A). The primary outcome measure was subjective cognitive trait fatigue, assessed through the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) cognitive subscore. Assessments additionally included the assessment of depressive symptoms, quality of life as well as an EEG measurement to capture objective trait fatigue [9]. See Supplementary Material for details on study design, randomization, intervention and statistical analysis.

The results revealed significant improvements in MFIS cognitive scores for both, the active and sham stimulation group, with these benefits lasting up to one month following the intervention (Fig. 1Ci). We observed a statistical significant reduction in subjective trait fatigue ratings from pre-to post-assessment (mean difference = 2.38, p < .001) and from pre-assessment to follow-up (mean difference = 3.35, p < .001) across all participants. A further, non-significant reduction was noted from post-assessment to follow-up (mean difference = 0.98, p = .095). Although these improvements were not exclusive to the active stimulation group, it is essential to highlight that both groups experienced substantial reductions in their so far treatment-resistant cognitive fatigue. This finding is noteworthy given the current lack of effective treatments for long-term fatigue associated with long COVID.

https://www.brainstimjrnl.com/article/S1935-861X(25)00064-6/fulltext

(Open Access)

 

[Yann04]

The Graphs don’t look very impressive.

The main thing I’d take from this study is, «yet more evidence the average pw “long covid” improves with time» [Edit: Not really even, see post below]

 

[Eleanor]

The main thing I’d take from this study is, «yet more evidence the average pw “long covid” improves with time»

I don't think it even tells us that. I think it just tells us that using questionnaire scores as a primary outcome measure is a waste of everyone's time.

Their only vaguely objective measure is the EEG, and that only showed significant changes in the sham group. LOL.

 

[Yann04]

I don't think it even tells us that. I think it just tells us that using questionnaire scores as a primary outcome measure is a waste of everyone's time.

Their only vaguely objective measure is the EEG, and that only showed significant changes in the sham group. LOL.

True. I completely forgot about placebos.

It’s quite baffling that they’d then write this up as a success. And then the university press release presented it as a success. So a bunch of german news are reporting on it as a success. And I see a bunch of pwME and LC in germanophone bluesky reporting the “successful study” with excitment… Urgh. I hate seeing people manipulated by university press releases like that.

 

[Eleanor]

It's ridiculous.

This paragraph in particular:

Although the study did not reveal stimulation-specific effects on subjective cognitive fatigue, the overall improvements observed in both groups emphasize the potential of tDCS as a component of a comprehensive treatment strategy for long-term post-COVID fatigue. Yet, our findings align with prior studies on neuromodulation, which highlight placebo effects driven by interpersonal dynamics and participant expectations, that could overshadow tDCS-specific effects [10]. The consistent improvements in cognitive trait fatigue, depressive symptoms, and quality of life highlight the clinical significance of these findings

How anyone can think these three sentences make sense together in any context, let alone in relation to the findings of this 'study'...

 

[rvallee]

It's ridiculous.

This paragraph in particular:



How anyone can think these three sentences make sense together in any context, let alone in relation to the findings of this 'study'...

The general problem where people mark their own homework. Work in which they invested themselves into, want it to work, or they wouldn't have developed it with that intent otherwise.

People who develop a treatment approach should not be testing it themselves. The fact that this is standard is truly absurd. There should be a complete separation, a wall between those who develop the treatment and those who trial it. A total wall, zero communication. If they can't put something together that can be replicated independently, then it's not even worth testing since it couldn't be implemented in the real world anyway.

But doing so would invalidate a huge chunk of "Imagine a world"-based medicine, so they won't be doing that without being forced to, and no one will force this to happen.