Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32176286›Full record

SynthesisPain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2020

Neuromodulation Techniques in Phantom Limb Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Kevin Pacheco-Barrios, Xianguo Meng, Felipe Fregni

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for phantom limb pain- a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Phantom Limb Pain Management.The Journal of hand surgery · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Kevin Pacheco-BarriosNeuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Xianguo MengNeuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Felipe FregniNeuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital · USShandong First Medical University · CN

Funding

Pragmatic Trial of Remote tDCS and Somatosensory Training for Phantom Limb Pain with Machine Learning to Predict Treatment ResponseR01HD082302 · NICHD · SPAULDING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL · PI Felipe Fregni · 2015 to 2026
$4.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD082302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effects of neuromodulation techniques in adults with phantom limb pain (PLP).

methodsA systematic search was performed, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental (QE) studies that were published from database inception to February 2019 and that measured the effects of neuromodulation in adults with PLP. Hedge's g effect size (ES) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

resultsFourteen studies (nine RCTs and five QE noncontrolled studies) were included. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed significant effects for i) excitatory primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation in reducing pain after stimulation (ES = -1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.26 to -0.45); ii) anodal M1 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in lowering pain after stimulation (ES = -1.50, 95% CI = -2.05 to 0.95), and one-week follow-up (ES = -1.04, 95% CI = -1.64 to 0.45). The meta-analysis of noncontrolled QE studies demonstrated a high rate of pain reduction after stimulation with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (rate = 67%, 95% CI = 60% to 73%) and at one-year follow-up with deep brain stimulation (rate = 73%, 95% CI = 63% to 82%).

conclusionsThe evidence from RCTs suggests that excitatory M1 stimulation-specifically, anodal M1 tDCS-has a significant short-term effect in reducing pain scale scores in PLP. Various neuromodulation techniques appear to have a significant and positive impact on PLP, but due to the limited amount of data, it is not possible to draw more definite conclusions.

Indexed as

Motor CortexPhantom LimbTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAdultHumansPain MeasurementTranscranial Magnetic StimulationMeta-analysis (Source: MeSH)NeuromodulationPhantom Limb Pain

Identifiers

PMID32176286
PMCPMC7593798
OpenAlexW3011566865

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.