ArticleMedicine2020
Cortical thickness in chronic pain: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of cortical thickness reduction in adult schizophrenia.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPNPooled it
- Sex-specific genetics underlie increased chronic pain risk in women: genome-wide association studies from the UK Biobank.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous studies using a variety of non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in vivo have demonstrated that chronic pain (CP) is associated with brain alterations. Cortical thickness (CTh) via surface-based morphometry (SBM) analysis of magnetic resonance imaging data is a valid and sensitive method to investigate the structure of brain gray matter. Many studies have employed SBM to measure CTh difference between patients with CP and pain-free controls and provided important insights into the brain basis of CP. However, the findings from these studies were inconsistent and have not been quantitatively reviewed.
methodsThree major electronic medical databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for eligible studies published in English on April 3, 2020. This protocol was prepared based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. The Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images software package will be employed to conducted a coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) to identify consistent CTh differences between patients with CP and pain-free controls. Several complementary analyses, including sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity analysis, publication bias, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis, will be further conducted to test the robustness of the results.
resultsThis CBMA will tell us whether CP with different subtypes shares common CTh alterations and what the pattern of its characterized alterations is.
conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this will be the first CBMA of SBM studies that characterizes brain CTh alterations in CP. The CBMA will provide the quantitative evidence of common brain cortical morphometry of CP. The findings will help us to understand the neural basis underlying CP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202050069.
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.