SynthesisScientific reports2020
Motor cortex stimulation in chronic neuropathic orofacial pain syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced, pharmacological and complementary interventions for chronic or recurrent orofacial pain conditions: a systematic evidence map with selective meta-analyses.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Pooled it
- Neurovascular Compression Syndromes of Cranial Nerves: A Multidisciplinary Guide to Management.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Long-Term Outcomes of Epidural Motor Cortex Stimulation for Refractory Chronic Neuropathic Orofacial Pain.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Electromagnetic neuromodulation for chronic pain: historical context, contemporary modalities, and evidence gaps.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for the treatment of trigeminal neuropathic pain.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- The Diagnosis and Treatment of Neuropathic Pain.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024Review
- Anatomo-physiological basis and applied techniques of electrical neuromodulation in chronic pain.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Review
- Positioning of epidural electrode for motor cortex stimulation in general anesthesia based on intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring to treat refractory trigeminal neuropathic pain.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Current Neurostimulation Therapies for Chronic Pain Conditions.Current pain and headache reports · 2023Review
- Brain stimulation for chronic pain management: a narrative review of analgesic mechanisms and clinical evidence.Neurosurgical review · 2023Review
- Systemic and Peripheral Mechanisms of Cortical Stimulation-Induced Analgesia and Refractoriness in a Rat Model of Neuropathic Pain.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- PSD-95 in the anterior cingulate cortex contributes to neuropathic pain by interdependent activation with NR2B.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2022Review
- Supraspinal Mechanisms Underlying Ocular Pain.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive motor Cortex Stimulation (iMCS) was introduced in the 1990's for the treatment of chronic neuropathic orofacial pain (CNOP), although its effectiveness remains doubtful. However, CNOP is known to be a heterogeneous group of orofacial pain disorders, which can lead to different responses to iMCS. Therefore, this paper investigated (1) whether the effectiveness of iMCS is significantly different among different CNOP disorders and (2) whether other confounding factors can be impacting iMCS results in CNOP. A systematic review and meta-analysis using a linear mixed-model was performed. Twenty-three papers were included, totaling 140 CNOP patients. Heterogeneity of the studies showed to be 55.8%. A visual analogue scale (VAS) measured median pain relief of 66.5% (ranging from 0-100%) was found. Linear mixed-model analysis showed that patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia responded significantly more favorable to iMCS than patients suffering from dysfunctional pain syndromes (p = 0.030). Also, patients suffering from CNOP caused by (supra)nuclear lesions responded marginally significantly better to iMCS than patients suffering from CNOP due to trigeminal nerve lesions (p = 0.049). No other confounding factors were elucidated. This meta-analysis showed that patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia and patients suffering from (supra)nuclear lesions causing CNOP responded significantly more favorable than others on iMCS. No other confounding factors were found relevant.
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.