Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29849746›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2018

Modelling of the Current Density Distributions during Cortical Electric Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain Treatment.

S Fiocchi, E Chiaramello, P Ravazzani, M Parazzini

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S FiocchiCNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Elettronica e di Ingegneria dell'Informazione e delle Telecomunicazioni IEIIT, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6568-8841
E ChiaramelloCNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Elettronica e di Ingegneria dell'Informazione e delle Telecomunicazioni IEIIT, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2503-4779
P RavazzaniCNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Elettronica e di Ingegneria dell'Informazione e delle Telecomunicazioni IEIIT, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0282-3329
M ParazziniCNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Elettronica e di Ingegneria dell'Informazione e delle Telecomunicazioni IEIIT, Milan, Italy.
Institute of Electronics, Computer and Telecommunication Engineering · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last two decades, motor cortex stimulation has been recognized as a valuable alternative to pharmacological therapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Although this technique started to be used in clinical studies, the debate about the optimal settings that enhance its effectiveness without inducing tissue damage is still open. To this purpose, computational approaches applied to realistic human models aimed to assess the current density distribution within the cortex can be a powerful tool to provide a basic understanding of that technique and could help the design of clinical experimental protocols. This study aims to evaluate, by computational techniques, the current density distributions induced in the brain by a realistic electrode array for cortical stimulation. The simulation outcomes, summarized by specific metrics quantifying the efficacy of the stimulation (i.e., the effective volume and the effective depth of penetration) over two cortical targets, were evaluated by varying the interelectrode distance, the stimulus characteristics (amplitude and frequency), and the anatomical human model. The results suggest that all these parameters somehow affect the current density distributions and have to be therefore taken into account during the planning of effective electrical cortical stimulation strategies. In particular, our calculations show that (1) the most effective interelectrode distance equals 2 cm; (2) increasing voltage amplitudes increases the effective volume; (3) increasing frequencies allow enlarging the effective volume; and (4) the effective depth of penetration is strictly linked to both the anatomy of the subject and the electrode placement.

Indexed as

Electric StimulationModels, AnatomicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrainHeadHumansMaleNeuralgia

Identifiers

PMID29849746
PMCPMC5937624
OpenAlexW2800285223

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.