ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2021
Update of Neuromodulation in Chronic Migraine.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Evaluating Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Refractory Chronic Cluster Headache Prevention: Insights from a Randomized Crossover Pilot Trial.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- A summary of the current circumstances of migraineurs in China: a review of the GBD2019 database.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Nociplastic Pain: A Critical Paradigm for Multidisciplinary Recognition and Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Drug-Free Noninvasive Thermal Nerve Block: Validation of Sham Devices.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Migraine: Advances in the Pathogenesis and Treatment.Neurology international · 2023Review
- Migraine and Neuromodulation: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2022Review
- Pain is reduced by transcutaneous cervical vagus nerve stimulation and correlated with cardiorespiratory variability measures in the context of opioid withdrawal.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewNeuromodulation devices have become an attractive alternative to traditional pharmacotherapy for migraine, especially for patients intolerant to medication or who prefer non-pharmacological options. In the past decades, many studies demonstrated the efficacy of neuromodulation devices in patients with episodic migraine (EM). However, the benefit of these devices on chronic migraine (CM), which is typically more debilitating and refractory than EM, remains not well studied. RECENT
findingsWe reviewed the literature within the last five years on using FDA-cleared and investigational devices for CM. There were eight randomized controlled trials and 15 open-label observational studies on ten neuromodulation devices. Neuromodulation is promising for use in CM, although efficacy varies among devices or individuals. Noninvasive devices are usually considered safe with minimal adverse events. However, stimulation protocol and methodology differ between studies. More well-designed studies adhering to the guideline may facilitate FDA clearance and better insurance coverage.
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.