Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34837963›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of headache and pain2021

Which is the best transcranial direct current stimulation protocol for migraine prevention? A systematic review and critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials.

Raffaele Ornello, Valeria Caponnetto, Susanna Ratti, Giulia D'Aurizio, Chiara Rosignoli, Francesca Pistoia, Michele Ferrara, Simona Sacco, Aurora D'Atri

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of headache and pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06640634 (Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Postdural Puncture Headache), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

NCT06640634 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Postdural Puncture Headache: Results of Two Randomized Sham - Controlled Trials

TypeinterventionalSponsorNeuromed IRCCSRan2022 to 2024Enrolled97ConditionsPostdural Puncture Headache, Lumbar PunctureArmsactive in therapeutic tDCS (Th-tDCS): anodal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (a-tDCS), sham in therapeutic tDCS (Th-tDCS): anodal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (a-tDCS), active in preventive tDCS (Pr-tDCS): anodal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (a-tDCS), sham in preventive tDCS (Pr-tDCS): anodal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (a-tDCS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Non-Pharmacological Treatment for Chronic Migraine.Current pain and headache reports · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Raffaele OrnelloNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Valeria CaponnettoNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Susanna RattiNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Giulia D'AurizioNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Chiara RosignoliNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Francesca PistoiaNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Michele FerraraNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Simona SaccoNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy. simona.sacco@univaq.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0651-1939
Aurora D'AtriNeuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
University of L'Aquila · IT

Funding

University of L'Aquila 80798
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could counteract the pathophysiological triggers of migraine attacks by modulating cortical excitability. Several pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the efficacy of tDCS for migraine prevention. We reviewed and summarized the state of the art of tDCS protocols for migraine prevention, discussing study results according to the stimulations parameters and patients' populations. MAIN BODY: We combined the keywords 'migraine', 'headache', 'transcranial direct current stimulation', and 'tDCS' and searched Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science, from the beginning of indexing to June 22, 2021. We only included RCTs comparing the efficacy of active tDCS with sham tDCS to decrease migraine frequency, intensity, and/or acute drug utilization. The risk of bias of each RCT was assessed by using the RoB-2 tool (Cochrane Collaboration). Thirteen RCTs (from 2011 to 2021) were included in the review. The included patients ranged from 13 to 135. RCTs included patients with any migraine (n=3), chronic migraine (n=6), episodic migraine (n=3) or menstrual migraine (n=1). Six RCTs used cathodal and five anodal tDCS, while two RCTs compared the efficacy of both cathodal and anodal tDCS with that of sham. In most of the cathodal stimulation trials, the target areas were the occipital regions, with reference on central or supraorbital areas. In anodal RCTs, the anode was usually placed above the motor cortical areas and the cathode on supraorbital areas. All RCTs adopted repeated sessions (from 5 to 28) at variable intervals, while the follow-up length spanned from 1 day up to 12 months. Efficacy results were variable but overall positive. According to the RoB-2 tool, only four of the 13 RCTs had a low risk of bias, while the others presented some concerns.

conclusionsBoth anodal and cathodal tDCS are promising for migraine prevention. However, there is a need for larger and rigorous RCTs and standardized procedures. Additionally, the potential benefits and targeted neurostimulation protocols should be assessed for specific subgroups of patients.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersMotor CortexTranscranial Direct Current StimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulationmigrainemigraine preventionnon-pharmacological treatmentTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34837963
PMCPMC8903540
OpenAlexW3216835273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.