Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30204647›Full record

ArticlePain2019

Effects of continuous theta-burst stimulation of the primary motor and secondary somatosensory areas on the central processing and the perception of trigeminal nociceptive input in healthy volunteers.

Onur Annak, Tonio Heidegger, Carmen Walter, Ralf Deichmann, Ulrike Nöth, Onno Hansen-Goos, Ulf Ziemann, Jörn Lötsch

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Onur AnnakInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Tonio HeideggerClinic of Neurology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Carmen WalterProject Group Translational Medicine and Pharmacology TMP, Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology IME, Frankfurt, Germany.
Ralf DeichmannBrain Imaging Center, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Ulrike NöthBrain Imaging Center, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Onno Hansen-GoosInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Ulf ZiemannDepartment of Neurology & Stroke, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.
Jörn LötschInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEFraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Noninvasive modulation of the activity of pain-related brain regions by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation promises an innovative approach at analgesic treatments. However, heterogeneous successes in pain modulation by setting reversible "virtual lesions" at different brain areas point at unresolved problems including the optimum stimulation site. The secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) has been previously identified to be involved in the perception of pain-intensity differences. Therefore, impeding its activity should impede the coding of the sensory component of pain intensity, resulting in a flattening of the relationship between pain intensity and physical stimulus strength. This was assessed using inactivating spaced continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) in 18 healthy volunteers. In addition, cTBS was applied on the primary motor cortex (M1) shown previously to yield moderate and variable analgesic effects, whereas sham stimulation at both sites served as placebo condition. Continuous theta-burst stimulation flattened the relationship between brain activation and stimulus strength, mainly at S2, the insular cortex, and the postcentral gyrus (16 subjects analyzed). However, these effects were observed after inactivation of M1 while this effect was not observed after inactivation of S2. Nevertheless, both the M1 and the S2-spaced cTBS treatment were not reflected in the ratings of the nociceptive stimuli of different strengths (17 subjects analyzed), contrasting with the clear coding of stimulus strength by these data. Hence, while modulating the central processing of nociceptive input, cTBS failed to produce subjectively relevant changes in pain perception, indicating that the method in the present implementation is still unsuitable for clinical application.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMotor CortexOxygenPainPain PerceptionSomatosensory CortexTheta RhythmOxygen

Identifiers

PMID30204647
PMCPMC6344075
OpenAlexW2895037513

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.