Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27190485›Full record

ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2016

The antalgic effects of non-invasive physical modalities on central post-stroke pain: a systematic review.

Chih-Chung Chen, Yu-Fen Chuang, Andrew Chih-Wei Huang, Chih-Kuang Chen, Ya-Ju Chang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The prevalence and management of central post-stroke pain at a hospital in Zimbabwe.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2020
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chih-Chung ChenDepartment of Physical Therapy, Chang Gung University, Taiwan; Healthy Aging Center Chang Gung University, Taiwan.
Yu-Fen ChuangDepartment of Physical Therapy, Chang Gung University, Taiwan; Healthy Aging Center Chang Gung University, Taiwan.
Andrew Chih-Wei HuangDepartment of Psychology, University of Fo Guang, Taiwan.
Chih-Kuang ChenDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan; School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taiwan.
Ya-Ju ChangDepartment of Physical Therapy, Chang Gung University, Taiwan; Healthy Aging Center Chang Gung University, Taiwan.
Chang Gung University · TWChang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWFo Guang University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

[Purpose] This study systematically reviewed the antalgic effects of non-invasive physical modalities (NIPMs) on central post-stroke pain (CPSP). [Subjects and Methods] Clinical studies were sought on September 2015 in 10 electronic databases, including Medline and Scopus. The searching strings were "central pain and stroke" and "treatment, and physical or non-pharmacological". The inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for screening the clinical articles by two reviewers. Pain scores on visual analog scale in an article were used as the outcome measure for resulting judgment. The NIPMs intervention summarized from the eligible articles was rated from Levels A to C according to Evidence Classification Scheme for Therapeutic Interventions. [Results] Over 1200 articles were identified in the initial searches and 85 studies were retrieved. Sixteen studies were eligible and judged. Caloric vestibular stimulation (n=3), heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation (n=1), and transcutaneous electrical stimulation (n=1) were rated below Level C. Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS; n=2) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; n=9) were rated as Level B. [Conclusion] The findings suggest that TMS and TDCS were better than other treatments for CPSP relief but the studies were of insufficient quality.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaCentral post-stroke painNon-invasive physical modality

Identifiers

PMID27190485
PMCPMC4868245
OpenAlexW2344300034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.