ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2021
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain on the Non-Motor Cortex: An Evidence Mapping of Systematic Reviews.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Analgesic Enhancing Effects of Coupling M1 and PMC rTMS on Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: An fNIRS Study.Pain research & management · 2026Trial
- Comparison of intermittent theta burst stimulation and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain: A sham-controlled study.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Trial
- Neuromodulation for Pain and Fatigue in Hereditary and Acquired Neuromuscular Conditions: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with acupuncture on central pain and mood.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- rTMS and TENS Relieve Neuropathic Pain in CCI Model Rats by Modulating Central Nervous System TRPV1 and Neuroinflammation.Mediators of inflammation · 2024Article
- Shedding light on neuropathic pain: Current and emerging tools for diagnosis, screening, and quantification.SAGE open medicine · 2024Review
- Diagnosis and Management of Neuropathic Pain in Spine Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Neuropathic Pain.Neural plasticity · 2023Review
- The Role of Gut Microbiota in Various Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders-An Evidence Mapping Based on Quantified Evidence.Mediators of inflammation · 2023Review
- Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex sensing analgesia.Biophysics and physicobiology · 2022Article
- Efficacy of neuromodulation techniques (TMS and tDCS) in cancer pain management: A systematic review.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was aimed to summarize and analyze the quality of the available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the non-motor cortex (non-M1) for neuropathic pain (NP) through an evidence mapping approach.
methodsWe follow the Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) methodology. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Library. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, were included. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted according to a defined population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions (stimulation target, frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)) and comparison (sham rTMS or other targets). The evidence mapping was presented in tables and a bubble plot.
resultsA total of 23 SRs were included. According to the AMSTAR-2, 20 SRs scored "very low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SRs scored "low," and 1 SR scored "high." A total of 17 PICOs were extracted. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is the most studied of the non-motor cortex targets. PICOs of DLPFC, premotor cortex (PMC), frontal cortex, and secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) were mainly categorized with a "potentially better" conclusion. High-frequency (5-20 Hz) rTMS of non-M1 usually lead to "potentially better" conclusions.
conclusionsDLPFC, PMC, frontal cortex, and S2 seem to be promising new targets for rTMS treatment of certain NP. Evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence gap that more research efforts are necessary in order to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols for non-M1 targets and standardize parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Further investigation is advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.
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.