SynthesisHuman brain mapping2021
Variability and effect sizes of intracranial current source density estimations during pain: Systematic review, experimental findings, and future perspectives.
Synthesis in Human brain mapping, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variability and effect sizes of intracranial current source density estimations during pain: Systematic review, experimental findings, and future perspectives.Human brain mapping · 2021Pooled it
- Quantitative Electroencephalography as a Complement to Symptom-Based Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- EEG Techniques with Brain Activity Localization, Specifically LORETA, and Its Applicability in Monitoring Schizophrenia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Changes in alpha, theta, and gamma oscillations in distinct cortical areas are associated with altered acute pain responses in chronic low back pain patients.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pain arises from the integration of sensory and cognitive processes in the brain, resulting in specific patterns of neural oscillations that can be characterized by measuring electrical brain activity. Current source density (CSD) estimation from low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (LORETA) and its standardized (sLORETA) and exact (eLORETA) variants, is a common approach to identify the spatiotemporal dynamics of the brain sources in physiological and pathological pain-related conditions. However, there is no consensus on the magnitude and variability of clinically or experimentally relevant effects for CSD estimations. Here, we systematically examined reports of sample size calculations and effect size estimations in all studies that included the keywords pain, and LORETA, sLORETA, or eLORETA in Scopus and PubMed. We also assessed the reliability of LORETA CSD estimations during non-painful and painful conditions to estimate hypothetical sample sizes for future experiments using CSD estimations. We found that none of the studies included in the systematic review reported sample size calculations, and less than 20% reported measures of central tendency and dispersion, which are necessary to estimate effect sizes. Based on these data and our experimental results, we determined that sample sizes commonly used in pain studies using CSD estimations are suitable to detect medium and large effect sizes in crossover designs and only large effects in parallel designs. These results provide a comprehensive summary of the effect sizes observed using LORETA in pain research, and this information can be used by clinicians and researchers to improve settings and designs of future pain studies.
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.