Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31062295›Full record

ArticleNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2019

At-Home Cortical Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: a Feasibility Study with Initial Clinical Results.

Luis Garcia-Larrea, Caroline Perchet, Koichi Hagiwara, Nathalie André-Obadia

Abstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Luis Garcia-LarreaCentral Integration of Pain (NeuroPain) Lab-Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, INSERM U1028, CNRS, UMR5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69677, Bron, France. Larrea@univ-lyon1.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9873-789X
Caroline PerchetCentral Integration of Pain (NeuroPain) Lab-Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, INSERM U1028, CNRS, UMR5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69677, Bron, France.
Koichi HagiwaraCentral Integration of Pain (NeuroPain) Lab-Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, INSERM U1028, CNRS, UMR5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69677, Bron, France.
Nathalie André-ObadiaCentral Integration of Pain (NeuroPain) Lab-Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, INSERM U1028, CNRS, UMR5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69677, Bron, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Home Care ServicesAdultAgedDouble-Blind MethodFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotor CortexNeuralgiaPain ManagementPain MeasurementSelf CareTranscranial Direct Current StimulationCortical stimulationHome stimulationNeuropathic painrTMStDCS

Identifiers

PMID31062295
PMCPMC6985395

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.