ReviewJournal of pain research2023
Pain and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of dual direct and alternating currents on pain induced by blood sampling and intramuscular injection processes.Pain management · 2025Trial
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Treat Neuropathic Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Global trends and hotspots in pain associated with bipolar disorder in the last 20 years: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Pain management is a constant struggle. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulation technique with proved efficacy in chronic pain. Objective: The aim of the study is to provide a bibliometric perspective regarding articles on pain and tDCS. Having a visualized and systematically overview of publication trends, new research ideas could arise for clinicians. Methods: Articles on pain and tDCS were retrieved from Web of Science database. Using the R software version 4.1.2 and the "biblioshiny" R package, a quantitative and statistical analysis was performed. Time trend, number of publications, journals and authors, author country and institution, as well as citations and references were visualized. Results: A total of 554 publication fulfilled the criteria and were analyzed. The scientific production has been increasing over time with an annual growth of 17.1%. Brain Stimulation Journal and Journal of Pain are the leading journals regarding articles and citations. Fregni F. (83 articles) is the most prolific researcher with important authorship in the field. USA is the country with most authors involved in the topic (558 authors), whereas the leading institution is represented by Universidade Federal Rio Grande Do Sul (84 articles). Lefaucheur JP. article from 2017 has the maximum citations, while keywords in trend in the last three years are osteoarthritis and low back pain. Conclusion: This is the first bibliometric study that reflects the trends of tDCS in the field of pain. Journals as well as authors are limited and clustered. However the number of articles as well as number of citations are constantly increasing, supporting the idea that this is an emerging topic. The information obtained could be an important practical basis for future pain management research.
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.