ReviewPain and therapy2021
Burst Motor Cortex Stimulation Evokes Sustained Suppression of Thalamic Stroke Pain: A Narrative Review and Single-Case Overview.
Review in Pain and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep brain stimulation and motor cortex stimulation for central post-stroke pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Pooled it
- Central post-stroke pain: advances in clinical and preclinical research.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2025Review
- The Impact of Burst Motor Cortex Stimulation on Cardiovascular Autonomic Modulation in Chronic Pain: A Feasibility Study for a New Approach to Objectively Monitor Therapeutic Effects.Pain and therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic refractory central post-stroke pain (CPSP), one of the most disabling consequences of cerebral stroke, occurs in up to 10% of patients with CPSP. Because a considerable proportion of these patients with chronic pain remain resistant to pharmacological and behavioral therapies, adjunctive invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation therapies are needed. We performed a review of human studies applying burst and conventional motor cortex stimulation (burstMCS and cMCS, respectively) for chronic pain states, on the basis of data sources identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, and SCOPUS, as well as manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Our aim was to review and discuss clinical data on the indications of burstMCS for various chronic pain states originating from central stroke (excluding trigeminal facial pain). In addition, we assessed the efficacy and safety of burst versus cMCS for central post-stroke pain with an extended follow-up of 5 years in a 60-year-old man. According to our review, uncontrolled observational human cohort studies and one RCT using cMCS waveforms have revealed a meaningful clinical response; however, these studies lacked placebo groups and extended observation periods. In our case report, we found that 3 months of adjunctive cMCS reduced pain levels [visual analog scale (VAS) pre: 9/10 versus VAS post 7/10], whereas the pain decreased further under burstMCS (VAS pre: 7/10 versus VAS post: 2/10); the study involved a follow-up of 5 years and the following parameters: burst rate 40 Hz (500 Hz), 1-1.75 mA, 1 ms, bipolar configuration. To date, only limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of burst motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of refractory chronic pain. BurstMCS resulted in significantly decreased post-stroke pain observed after 5 years of cMCS. The available literature suggests similar efficacy as that of conventional (tonic) motor cortex stimulation, although the results are preliminary. Mechanistically, the precise mechanism of action is not fully understood. However, burstMCS may interact with the nociceptive thalamic-cingulate and descending spinal pain networks. To determine the potential utility of this treatment, large-scale sham-controlled trials comparing cMCS and burstMCS are highly recommended.
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.