Trial reportDer Nervenarzt2006
[Central and peripheral deafferent pain: therapy with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation].
Trial report in Der Nervenarzt, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for phantom limb pain- a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of neuromodulation techniques on pain and depression in patients with phantom limb pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2024Pooled it
- Neuromodulation Techniques in Phantom Limb Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2020Pooled it
- Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of Invasive and Non-Invasive Neuromodulation Techniques for Chronic Central and Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- The Concept, Development, and Application of a Home-Based High-Definition tDCS for Bilateral Motor Cortex Modulation in Migraine and Pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Accelerating the translation of research findings to clinical practice: insights from phantom limb pain clinical trials.Principles and practice of clinical research (2015) · 2021Article
- Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Less Might Be More: Conduction Failure as a Factor Possibly Limiting the Efficacy of Higher Frequencies in rTMS Protocols.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Maladaptive Plasticity, and Bayesian Analysis in Phantom Limb Pain.Medical acupuncture · 2017Review
- Non-invasive Brain Stimulation, a Tool to Revert Maladaptive Plasticity in Neuropathic Pain.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2016Review
- Use of cortical stimulation in neuropathic pain, tinnitus, depression, and movement disorders.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2014Article
- Non-invasive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) of the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain-At the Tipping Point?Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2013Article
- [Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation. Treatment option for spasticity?].Der Nervenarzt · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates the effects of repeated sessions of low- and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex on central and phantom limb pain.
methodsTwenty seven patients with central (n=13) and phantom limb (n=14) pain participated in a blind, randomised placebo-controlled study comparing the effect of 1-Hz and 5-Hz rTMS with sham stimulation. Each treatment block consisted of a 5-day baseline phase, a 5-day therapy phase, and an 18-day washout phase. In the therapy phase, 500 stimuli were applied in the particular frequency at about the same time on each day.
resultsA reduction in pain immediately after stimulation was observed in all therapy groups. This effect was similar for all treatment conditions, including sham stimulation. No significant long-term effects of rTMS on pain intensity or mood were observed.
conclusionAt present, rTMS can not be recommended as a standard therapy for central and phantom limb pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.