ArticleNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2019
At-Home Cortical Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: a Feasibility Study with Initial Clinical Results.
Article in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2023Trial
- Home use of low-intensity transcranial electrical stimulation in clinical practice: an IFCN handbook chapter.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Review
- Treatment of Chronic Neck Pain with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Single-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Long-term Effect of Multichannel tDCS Protocol in Patients with Central Cortex Epilepsies Associated with Epilepsia Partialis Continua.Brain topography · 2024Article
- An Educational Program for Remote Training and Supervision of Home-Based Transcranial Electrical Stimulation: Feasibility and Preliminary Effectiveness.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2024Article
- Multichannel tDCS with advanced targeting for major depressive disorder: a tele-supervised at-home pilot study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Beyond trial-and-error: Individualizing therapeutic transcranial neuromodulation for chronic pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2023Review
- Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2022Review
- Event-Related Potentials as Markers of Efficacy for Combined Working Memory Training and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Regimens: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022Article
- Safety and Feasibility of Tele-Supervised Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Article
- Methods and strategies of tDCS for the treatment of pain: current status and future directions.Expert review of medical devices · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical use of noninvasive cortical stimulation procedures is hampered by the limited duration of the analgesic effects and the need to perform stimulation in hospital settings. Here, we tested the feasibility and pilot efficacy of an internet-based system for at-home, long-duration, medically controlled transcranial motor cortex stimulation (H-tDCS), via a double-blinded, sham-controlled trial in patients with neuropathic pain refractory to standard-of-care drug therapy. Each patient was first trained at hospital, received a stimulation kit, allotted a password-protected Web space, and completed daily tDCS sessions during 5 weeks, via a Bluetooth connection between stimulator and a minilaptop. Each session was validated and internet-controlled by hospital personnel. Daily pain ratings were obtained during 11 consecutive weeks, and afterwards via iterative visits/phone contacts. Twenty full procedures were completed in 12 consecutive patients (500 daily tDCS sessions, including 20% sham). No serious adverse effects were recorded. Superficial burning at electrode position occurred in 2 patients, and nausea/headache in two others, all of whom wished to pursue stimulation. Six out of the 12 patients achieved satisfactory relief on a scale combining pain scores, drug intake, and quality of life. Daily pain reports correlated with such combined assessment, and differentiated responders from nonresponders without overlap. Clinical improvement in responders could last up to 6 months. Five patients asked to repeat the whole procedure when pain resumed again, with comparable results. At-home, long-duration tDCS proved safe and technically feasible, and provided long-lasting relief in 50% of a small sample of patients with drug-resistant neuropathic pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.