Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30271335›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2018

Effect of Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Resting-State Electroencephalography and Laser-Evoked Potentials in Migraine Patients: Mechanistic Insights.

Eleonora Vecchio, Iege Bassez, Katia Ricci, Cristina Tassorelli, Eric Liebler, Marina de Tommaso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Non-invasive neuromodulation of the cervical vagus nerve in rare primary headaches.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cortical pain processing in migraine.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2020
    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

6 authors.

Eleonora VecchioApplied Neurophysiology and Pain Unit, SMBNOS Department, Polyclinic General Hospital, Bari Aldo Moro University, Bari, Italy.
Iege BassezDepartment of Data Analysis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Katia RicciApplied Neurophysiology and Pain Unit, SMBNOS Department, Polyclinic General Hospital, Bari Aldo Moro University, Bari, Italy.
Cristina TassorelliHeadache Science Center, C. Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Eric LieblerelectroCore LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ, United States.
Marina de TommasoApplied Neurophysiology and Pain Unit, SMBNOS Department, Polyclinic General Hospital, Bari Aldo Moro University, Bari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent multicenter trial provided Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post-stimulation. Here we aimed to investigate the potential effect of nVNS in the modulation of spontaneous and pain related bioelectrical activity in a subgroup of migraine patients enrolled in the PRESTO trial by using resting-state electroencephalography and trigeminal laser-evoked potentials (LEPs). LEPs were recorded for 27 migraine patients who received active or sham nVNS over the cervical vagus nerve. We measured power values for frequencies between 1-100 Hz in a resting-state condition and the latency and amplitude of N1, N2, and P2 components of LEPs in a basal condition during and after active or sham vagus nerve stimulation (T0, T1, T2). The P2 evoked by the right and the left trigeminal branch was smaller during active nVNS. The sham device also attenuated the P2 amplitude evoked by the left trigeminal branch at T1 and T2, but this attenuation did not reach significance. No changes were observed for N1 amplitude, N1, N2, P2 latency, or pain rating. nVNS induced an increase of EEG power in both slow and fast rhythms, but this effect was not significant as compared to the sham device. These findings suggest that nVNS acts on the cortical areas that are responsible for trigeminal pain control and pave the ground for future studies aimed at confirming the possible correlations with clinical outcomes, including the effect on symptoms that are directly correlated with trigeminal pain processing and modulation.

Indexed as

EEGheadachelaser-evoked potentialsmigrainevagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30271335
PMCPMC6146235

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.