Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29796941›Full record

ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2018

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Deafferentation Pain.

Ahmed E Hussein, Darian R Esfahani, Galina I Moisak, Jamil A Rzaev, Konstantin V Slavin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia after brainstem infarction: A case report.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ahmed E HusseinDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 912 South Wood Street, 451-N NPI, (MC 799), Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Darian R EsfahaniDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 912 South Wood Street, 451-N NPI, (MC 799), Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Galina I MoisakFederal Neurosurgical Center of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation.
Jamil A RzaevFederal Neurosurgical Center of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation.
Konstantin V SlavinDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 912 South Wood Street, 451-N NPI, (MC 799), Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. kslavin@uic.edu.
University of Illinois Chicago · USFederal Neurosurgical Center Novosibirsk · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewSince the early 1990s, motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has been a unique treatment modality for patients with drug-resistant deafferentation pain. While underpowered studies and case reports have limited definitive, data-driven analysis of MCS in the past, recent research has brought new clarity to the MCS literature and has helped identify appropriate indications for MCS and its long-term efficacy. RECENT

findingsIn this review, new research in MCS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are analyzed and compared with historical landmark papers. Currently, MCS is effective in providing relief to 40-64% of patients, with decreasing analgesic effect over time addressed by altering stimulation settings. rTMS and tDCS, two historic, non-invasive stimulation techniques, are providing new alternatives for the treatment of deafferentation pain, with rTMS finding utility in identifying MCS responders. Future advances in electrode arrays, neuro-navigation, and high-definition tDCS hold promise in providing pain relief to growing numbers of patients. Deafferentation pain is severe, disabling, and remains a challenge for patients and providers alike. Over the last several years, the MCS literature has been revitalized with studies and meta-analyses demonstrating MCS effectiveness and providing guidance in identifying responders. At the same time, rTMS and tDCS, two time-honored non-invasive stimulation techniques, are finding new utility in managing deafferentation pain and identifying good MCS candidates. As the number of potential therapies grow, the clinician's role is shifting to personalizing treatment to the unique pain of each patient. With new treatment modalities, this form of personalized medicine is more possible than ever before.

Indexed as

AnimalsCausalgiaHumansMotor CortexPain ManagementTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationMotor cortex stimulationNeuromodulationNeuropathic painRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationTranscranial direct current stimulationTrigeminal neuralgia

Identifiers

PMID29796941
OpenAlexW2804626144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.