Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32030854›Full record

SynthesisNeuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society2020

Invasive Motor Cortex Stimulation Influences Intracerebral Structures in Patients With Neuropathic Pain: An Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis of Imaging Data.

Ruben Volkers, Esmay Giesen, Maudy van der Heiden, Mijke Kerperien, Sibylle Lange, Erkan Kurt, Robert van Dongen, Dennis Schutter, Kris C P Vissers, Dylan Henssen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Neurosurgical Treatment of Pain.Brain sciences · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Pain in the claustrum.Neurobiology of pain (Cambridge, Mass.)
    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

10 authors.

Ruben VolkersDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Esmay GiesenDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maudy van der HeidenDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mijke KerperienDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sibylle LangeDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Erkan KurtDepartment of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Robert van DongenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain, and Palliative Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dennis SchutterDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Kris C P VissersDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain, and Palliative Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dylan HenssenDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3915-3034

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInvasive motor cortex stimulation (iMCS) has been proposed as a treatment for intractable neuropathic pain syndromes. Although the mechanisms underlying the analgesic effect of iMCS remain largely elusive, several studies found iMCS-related changes in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in neuropathic pain patients. The aim of this study was to meta-analyze the findings of neuroimaging studies on rCBF changes to iMCS.

methodsPubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for retrieval of relevant scientific papers. After initial assessment of relevancy by screening title and abstract by two investigators, independently, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for final inclusion of papers. Descriptive results were statistically assessed, whereas coordinates were pooled and meta-analyzed in accordance with the activation likelihood estimation (ALE) methodology.

resultsSix studies were included in the systematic narrative analysis, suggesting rCBF increases in the cingulate gyrus, thalamus, insula, and putamen after switching the MCS device "ON" as compared to the "OFF" situation. Decreases in rCBF were found in for example the precentral gyrus and different occipital regions. Two studies did not report stereotactic coordinates and were excluded from further analysis. ALE meta-analysis showed that, after switching the iMCS electrode "ON," increased rCBF occurred in the (1) anterior cingulate gyrus; (2) putamen; (3) cerebral peduncle; (4) precentral gyrus; (5) superior frontal gyrus; (6) red nucleus; (7) internal part of the globus pallidus; (8) ventral lateral nucleus of the thalamus; (9) medial frontal gyrus; (10) inferior frontal gyrus; and (11) claustrum, as compared to the "OFF" situation. Reductions in rCBF were found in the posterior cingulate gyrus when the iMCS electrode was turned "OFF."

conclusionsThese findings suggested that iMCS induces changes in principal components of the default mode-, the salience-, and sensorimotor network.

Indexed as

Cerebrovascular CirculationElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansLikelihood FunctionsMotor CortexNeuralgiaCerebral blood flowchronic neuropathic painefficacymeta-analysismotor cortex stimulation

Identifiers

PMID32030854
PMCPMC7317964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.