ReviewActa neurologica Belgica2024
Effect of different non-pharmacologic placebo treatments on migraine prevention: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Justice for Placebo: Placebo Effect in Clinical Trials and Everyday Practice.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The potential application of electrophysiological indicators in TMS treatment for MOH.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlacebo control plays an important role in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Specifying differential effects of various placebo controls on migraine prevention would be essential in the explanation of preventive treatment for migraine and the indirect comparison between different prophylactic therapeutics.
objectivesTo access the impact of different non-pharmacologic placebo types on different outcomes in migraine patients.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and Web of Science databases from the date of creation to June 19, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of migraine that included sham intervention of acupuncture or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (nVNS) or repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) were conducted. The primary outcome was the migraine days, and the secondary outcomes were the number of migraine attacks, headache days, headache frequency, and responder's rate. Placebo effects were assessed using five individual placebos for network meta-analysis, using mean differences to measure the relative effect of pair-wise comparisons between interventions.
resultA total of 50 trials with 4880 subjects were included. Twenty-seven trials were evaluated for low risk of bias. The results of indirect comparisons show that sham rTMS and sham tDCS had optimal and similar effects in reducing migraine days; sham acupuncture has the greatest effect on reducing the number of migraine attacks and relieving headache frequency; sham rTMS had a highly significant advantage in reducing headache days compared with the other placebo controls.
conclusionBased on the network meta-analysis results, we found that sham acupuncture had the greatest effect on migraine prophylaxis. The strong placebo effect of sham acupuncture should be considered when assessing the therapeutic effect.
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.