Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33953607›Full record

ReviewJournal of pain research2021

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Repeated Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Migraine.

Guoshuai Cai, Zhu Xia, Leigh Charvet, Feifei Xiao, Abhishek Datta, X Michelle Androulakis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Hallmarks of primary headache: part 1 - migraine.The journal of headache and pain · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Guoshuai Cai *Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA.
Zhu Xia *Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, People's Republic of China.
Leigh CharvetDepartment of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA.
Feifei XiaoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA.
Abhishek DattaResearch and Development, Soterix Medical, New York, NY, USA.
X Michelle Androulakis *Neurology, Columbia VA Health System, Columbia, SC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1833-3474
University of South Carolina · USCity College of New York · USNanjing Medical University · CNNew York University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may have therapeutic potential in the management of migraine. However, studies to date have yielded conflicting results. We reviewed studies using repeated tDCS for longer than 4 weeks in migraine treatment, and performed meta-analysis on the efficacy of tDCS in migraine.

methodsIn this meta-analysis, we included the common outcome measurements reported across randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Subgroup analysis was performed at different post-treatment endpoints, and with different stimulation intensities and polarities.

resultsFive RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis with a total of 104 migraine patients. We found a significant reduction of migraine pain intensity (MD: -1.44; CI: [-2.13, -0.76]) in active vs sham tDCS treated patients. Within active treatment groups, pain intensity and duration were significantly improved from baseline after tDCS treatment (intensity MD: -1.86; CI: [-3.30, -0.43]; duration MD: -4.42; CI: [-8.11, -0.74]) and during a follow-up period (intensity MD: -1.52; CI: [-1.84, -1.20]; duration MD: -1.94; CI: [-3.10, -0.77]). There was a significant reduction of pain intensity by both anodal (MD: -1.74; CI: [-2.80, -0.68]) and cathodal (MD: -1.49; CI: [-1.89, -1.09]) stimulation conditions.

conclusiontDCS treatment repeated over days for a period of 4 weeks or more is effective in reducing migraine pain intensity and duration of migraine episode. The benefit of tDCS can persist for at least 4 weeks after the completion of last tDCS session. Both anodal and cathodal stimulation are effective for reducing migraine pain intensity.

Indexed as

meta-analysismigraineneuromodulationtranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

Identifiers

PMID33953607
PMCPMC8090858
OpenAlexW3158609919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.