Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30573988›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain research2018

Patient-delivered tDCS on chronic neuropathic pain in prior responders to TMS (a randomized controlled pilot study).

Francis O'Neill, Paul Sacco, Eleanor Bowden, Rebecca Asher, Girvan Burnside, Trevor Cox, Turo Nurmikko

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic pain and neurogenic claudication related to lumbar spinal stenosis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Trial
  6. Better Fields or Currents? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Transcranial Magnetic (rTMS) Versus Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Neuropathic Pain.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The future of brain circuit-targeted therapeutics.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

7 authors.

Francis O'NeillThe Pain Research Institute, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Clinical Sciences Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, foneill@liverpool.ac.uk.
Paul SaccoThe Pain Research Institute, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Clinical Sciences Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, foneill@liverpool.ac.uk.
Eleanor BowdenThe Pain Research Institute, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Clinical Sciences Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, foneill@liverpool.ac.uk.
Rebecca AsherCancer Research UK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, Liverpool, UK.
Girvan BurnsideDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Trevor CoxCancer Research UK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, Liverpool, UK.
Turo NurmikkoThe Pain Research Institute, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Clinical Sciences Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, foneill@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccessful response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex requires continued maintenance treatments. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) may provide a more convenient alternative.

methodsThis pilot study aimed to examine the feasibility of a randomized, double-blind, double-crossover pilot study for patients to self-administer tDCS motor cortex stimulation for 20 minutes/day over five consecutive days. Primary outcomes were as follows: usability of patient-administered tDCS, compliance with device, recruitment, and retention rates. Secondary outcomes were as follows: effect on overall pain levels and quality of life via Short Form-36 anxiety and depression via Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Mini-Mental State scores.

resultsA total of 24 subjects with neuropathic pain, who had previously experienced rTMS motor cortex stimulation (13 with reduction in pain scores, 11 nonresponders) were recruited at the Pain Research Institute, Fazakerley, UK. A total of 21 subjects completed the study. Recruitment rate was 100% but retention rate was only 87.5%. All patients reported satisfactory usability of the tDCS device. No significant difference was shown between Sham vs Anodal (-0.16, 95% CI: -0.43 to 0.11)

conclusionThis study did not show a beneficial effect of tDCS in this group of patients and does not support the need for a larger definitive study using the same experimental paradigm.

trial registrationISRCTN56839387.

Indexed as

brain stimulationM1motor cortexneuropathic paintDCSTMStranscranial direct current stimulationtranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30573988
PMCPMC6292397

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.