Remotely Supervised, Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder affects over 280 million people worldwide, and access to effective treatment remains limited. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive option, and portable devices now allow for home-based delivery under varying degrees of remote supervision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy, safety, feasibility, and acceptability of home-based and remotely supervised tDCS for depressive disorders. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 and PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to July 2025, with backward and forward citation searching. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 12 distinct studies (16 reports), of which 6 (50%) were randomized sham-controlled trials forming the meta-analytic pool. Active home-based tDCS produced a small, statistically significant improvement over sham (pooled Hedges g=0.36, 95% CI 0.06-0.66; P=.03; I2=34.3%). The effect was not robust to removal of the single largest positive trial (omitting the one study from 2025: g=0.39, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.91), and trial-level results were mixed: the 2 largest trials (one unsupervised [n=210] and one self-administered [n=141]) were negative on their primary depression outcomes, whereas the largest real-time supervised trial (n=174) was positive (between-group 95% CI 0.51-4.01; P=.01). This estimate was concordant in direction with an independent peer-reviewed meta-analysis of overlapping trials, which reported a pooled Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.74, 95% CI -4.19 to -1.29) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.24, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.49), attenuating to nonsignificance (P>.05) in major depressive disorder without comorbid cognitive impairment. The pooled effect fell at or near the minimal clinically important difference. GRADE certainty was moderate. Adverse events were predominantly mild: one pilot study was terminated early for skin lesions, and one nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in an unsupervised trial. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based and remotely supervised tDCS produces a small, statistically significant but clinically modest antidepressant effect that is sensitive to the inclusion of the largest positive trial, with the 2 largest trials being negative. The available controlled evidence does not establish supervision intensity as a determinant of efficacy. Current data are insufficient to recommend routine clinical adoption; adequately powered trials with standardized supervision and longer follow-up are needed.