Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33302882›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of headache and pain2020

Neuromodulation techniques for acute and preventive migraine treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xavier Moisset, Bruno Pereira, Daniel Ciampi de Andrade, Denys Fontaine, Michel Lantéri-Minet, Jérôme Mawet

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of headache and pain, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT06943625 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Combined Effects of Green Light and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Migraine Intensity and Frequency in Migraine Patients.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled40ConditionsMigraineArmstDCS, Green light, medicine
NCT07451158 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Multicenter, Double-blind, and Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultra-Distal Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) Device for Migraine Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorSecond Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of MedicineRan2025 to 2026Enrolled206ConditionsMigraineArmsTrail of Ultral-distal Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation, Fake Stimulus
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Clinical utility and prospective of TMS-EEG: Updated review from an international expert group.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Hallmarks of primary headache: part 1 - migraine.The journal of headache and pain · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Xavier MoissetService de Neurologie, Biostatistics unit (DRCI), Université Clermont Auvergne, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm, Neuro-Dol, 58 rue Montalembert, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. xavier.moisset@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8799-0750
Bruno PereiraService de Neurologie, Biostatistics unit (DRCI), Université Clermont Auvergne, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm, Neuro-Dol, 58 rue Montalembert, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Daniel Ciampi de AndradeDepartment of Neurology, LIM 62 Pain Center, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Denys FontaineDepartment of Neurosurgery, Université Côte Azur, FHU InovPain, CHU Nice, Nice, France.
Michel Lantéri-MinetPain Department, Université Côte Azur, FHU InovPain, CHU Nice, Nice, France- Université Clermont-Auvergne, INSERM, Neuro-Dol, Nice, France.
Jérôme MawetEmergency Headache Center (Centre d'Urgences Céphalées), Department of Neurology, Lariboisière Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral neuromodulation methods exists for migraine treatment. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on migraine treatment using neurostimulation methods.

methodsWe searched Medline and Embase up to July 1, 2020 for RCTs reporting acute or preventive treatment of migraine with either non-invasive or invasive neurostimulation methods. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved studies and extracted data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were 2 h pain free for acute treatment and headache days per month for preventive treatment. We performed subgroup analyses by treatment (stimulation method and site of application). Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

resultsThirty-eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis (7 acute, 31 preventive) and 34 in the quantitative evaluation (6 acute, 28 preventive). Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) was effective for acute treatment. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions for any other techniques (single studies). Invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was effective for migraine prevention, with a large effect size but considerable heterogeneity, whereas supra-orbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) were effective, with small to medium effect sizes. Vagus-nerve stimulation, left prefrontal cortex rTMS, and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the M1 had no significant effect and heterogeneity was high.

conclusionSeveral neuromodulation methods are of potential interest for migraine management, but the quality of the evidence is very poor. Future large and well-conducted studies are needed and could improve on the present results.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranscranial Magnetic StimulationNeurostimulationOccipital nerve stimulationPercutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS)Remote electrical neuromodulationRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationTranscranial direct current stimulationTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationVagus-nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID33302882
PMCPMC7726868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.