Background: Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that modulates cortical excitability through stochastic resonance. While promising, its safety and efficacy in psychiatric disorders remain underexplored. Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of tRNS in various psychiatric disorders. Methods: A systematic review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251040192).Databases searched included CENTRAL-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were included from their inception to 30th April, 2025. Studies involving tRNS in psychiatric populations, regardless of study design, were included. The risk of bias was assessed using JBI tools. Results: 22 studies were included (642 individuals), spanning ADHD, depression, schizophrenia, dyslexia, and other conditions. Most studies used 20-minute tRNS sessions over 1−4 weeks. ADHD and dyslexia showed consistent improvements in overall executive function and reading & phonological skills, respectively. Schizophrenia studies demonstrated significant reductions in negative symptoms and auditory hallucinations. Effects in depression were mixed, with some studies reporting substantial symptom relief, while others found no significant benefit. Across disorders, tRNS was generally well-tolerated with only mild, transient adverse effects. Conclusion tRNS appears to be a safe, well-tolerated, and potentially effective intervention for specific psychiatric symptoms, especially in ADHD, dyslexia, and schizophrenia. However, inconsistent protocols and mixed outcomes in mood disorders highlight the need for standardized protocols and further research.

Objective: COVID-19 has gravely affected patients with psychiatric conditions. Potential interactions may occur between psychotropic medications and medications used in treatment of COVID-19. This study aimed to compare the online databases in terms of the quality of drug-drug interaction related information available on them. Methods: 216 drug interactions which included fifty-four psychotropic medication interactions with four COVID-19 drugs across six databases were analyzed by four authors independently. The overall grading of the databases was done on Likert scale independently by the authors using the parameters of ease of understanding for consumers and professionals, level of completeness, discussion on level of evidence and the number of available drugs, congruity with other databases and the mean score was tabulated. Results: Drugbank and Lexicomp had maximum discrepancy. The safety profile of Hydroxychloroquine was the best (eighteen moderate/severe psychotropic medication reactions) while Ritonavir has worst profile with thirty-nine medications. Drugbank had the highest SCOPE score (1.00) for completeness and covid19druginteractions.com had least (0.81). Overall, Liverpool© Drug Interaction Group and Lexicomp scored the highest (23/30 each) and were the best interaction checker software closely followed by Drugs.com (22/30). Medscape and WebMD were the poorest interaction checker databases. Conclusion There is significant variability in the available online databases. Liverpool © Drug Interaction Group and Lexicomp were the most reliable sources for healthcare workers whereas for patients, Drugs.com was the easiest to understand (as it segregates the needs of general consumers and professionals distinctly to explain the interaction).