Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131586›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Alterations in cortical excitability during pain: A combined TMS-EEG Study.

Nahian S Chowdhury, Alan Ki Chiang, Samantha K Millard, Patrick Skippen, Wei-Ju Chang, David A Seminowicz, Siobhan M Schabrun

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07432841 (Innovative Neuromodulation Treatments for Chronic Pain), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07432841 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Innovative Neuromodulation Treatments for Chronic Pain: Assessing and Predicting the Effects of Personalized High-Definition Protocols for Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HD-tDCS)

TypeinterventionalSponsorIstituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri SpARan2025 to 2027Enrolled144ConditionsChronic PainArmsAnodal High-Definition transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, Cathodal High-Definition transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, Sham (No Treatment)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nahian S ChowdhuryCenter for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alan Ki ChiangCenter for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Samantha K MillardCenter for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Patrick SkippenCenter for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Wei-Ju ChangCenter for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David A SeminowiczCenter for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Siobhan M SchabrunCenter for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUWestern University · CANeuroscience Research Australia · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

Validation of a novel cortical biomarker signature for painR61NS113269 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI DA SILVA, JOYCE TEIXEIRA, SCHABRUN, SIOBHAN · 2019 to 2019
$1.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R61 NS113269
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been used to examine inhibitory and facilitatory circuits during experimental pain and in chronic pain populations. However, current applications of TMS to pain have been restricted to measurements of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from peripheral muscles. Here, TMS was combined with electroencephalography (EEG) to determine whether experimental pain could induce alterations in cortical inhibitory/facilitatory activity observed in TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). In Experiment 1 (n = 29), multiple sustained thermal stimuli were administered to the forearm, with the first, second and third block of thermal stimuli consisting of warm but non-painful (pre-pain block), painful (pain block) and warm but non-painful (post-pain block) temperatures respectively. During each stimulus, TMS pulses were delivered while EEG (64 channels) was simultaneously recorded. Verbal pain ratings were collected between TMS pulses. Relative to pre-pain warm stimuli, painful stimuli led to an increase in the amplitude of the frontocentral negative peak ~45ms post-TMS (N45), with a larger increase associated with higher pain ratings. Experiments 2 and 3 (n = 10 in each) showed that the increase in the N45 in response to pain was not due to changes in sensory potentials associated with TMS, or a result of stronger reafferent muscle feedback during pain. This is the first study to use combined TMS-EEG to examine alterations in cortical excitability in response to pain. These results suggest that the N45 TEP peak, which indexes GABAergic neurotransmission, is implicated in pain perception and is a potential marker of individual differences in pain sensitivity.

Identifiers

PMID37131586
PMCPMC10153239
OpenAlexW4366774366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.