Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25738603›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

How does anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the pain neuromatrix affect brain excitability and pain perception? A randomised, double-blind, sham-control study.

Bita Vaseghi, Maryam Zoghi, Shapour Jaberzadeh

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bita VaseghiDepartment of Physiotherapy, School of Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Maryam ZoghiDepartment of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Shapour JaberzadehDepartment of Physiotherapy, School of Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Monash University · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegration of information between multiple cortical regions of the pain neuromatrix is thought to underpin pain modulation. Although altered processing in the primary motor (M1) and sensory (S1) cortices is implicated in separate studies, the simultaneous changes in and the relationship between these regions are unknown yet. The primary aim was to assess the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) over superficial regions of the pain neuromatrix on M1 and S1 excitability. The secondary aim was to investigate how M1 and S1 excitability changes affect sensory (STh) and pain thresholds (PTh).

methodsTwelve healthy participants received 20 min a-tDCS under five different conditions including a-tDCS of M1, a-tDCS of S1, a-tDCS of DLPFC, sham a-tDCS, and no-tDCS. Excitability of dominant M1 and S1 were measured before, immediately, and 30 minutes after intervention respectively. Moreover, STh and PTh to peripheral electrical and mechanical stimulation were evaluated. All outcome measures were assessed at three time-points of measurement by a blind rater.

resultsA-tDCS of M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) significantly increased brain excitability in M1 (p < 0.05) for at least 30 min. Following application of a-tDCS over the S1, the amplitude of the N20-P25 component of SEPs increased immediately after the stimulation (p < 0.05), whilst M1 stimulation decreased it. Compared to baseline values, significant STh and PTh increase was observed after a-tDCS of all three stimulated areas. Except in M1 stimulation, there was significant PTh difference between a-tDCS and sham tDCS.

conclusiona-tDCS of M1 is the best spots to enhance brain excitability than a-tDCS of S1 and DLPFC. Surprisingly, a-tDCS of M1 and S1 has diverse effects on S1 and M1 excitability. A-tDCS of M1, S1, and DLPFC increased STh and PTh levels. Given the placebo effects of a-tDCS of M1 in pain perception, our results should be interpreted with caution, particularly with respect to the behavioural aspects of pain modulation.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials, ACTRN12614000817640, http://www.anzctr.org.au/.

Indexed as

Deep Brain StimulationEvoked PotentialsPain PerceptionAdultDouble-Blind MethodElectrodesFemaleHumansMalePrefrontal Cortex

Identifiers

PMID25738603
PMCPMC4349802
OpenAlexW2064858258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.