SynthesisCurrent pain and headache reports2024
Utility of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Daily Headache Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Current pain and headache reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anatomo-physiological basis and applied techniques of electrical neuromodulation in chronic pain.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewManagement of chronic daily headaches (CDH) remains challenging due to the limited efficacy of standard prophylactic pharmacological measures. Several studies have reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can effectively treat chronic headaches. The objective was to determine the utility of rTMS for immediate post-treatment and sustained CDH prophylaxis. RECENT
findingsAll procedures were conducted per PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched for controlled clinical trials that have tested the efficacy of rTMS on populations with CDH. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the 'meta' package in R to examine the post- vs. pre-rTMS changes in standardized headache intensity and frequency compared to sham-control conditions. Thirteen trials were included with a combined study population of N = 538 patients with CDH (rTMS, N = 284; Sham, N = 254). Patients exposed to rTMS had significantly reduced standardized CDH intensity and frequency in the immediate post-treatment period (Hedges' g = -1.16 [-1.89, -0.43], p = 0.002 and Δ = -5.07 [-10.05, -0.11], p = 0.045 respectively). However, these effects were sustained marginally in the follow-up period (Hedges' g = -0.43 [-0.76, -0.09], p = 0.012 and Δ = -3.33 [-5.52, -1.14], p = 0.003). Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed, at least partially driven by variations in rTMS protocols. Despite the observed clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits in the immediate post-treatment period, the prophylactic effects of rTMS on CDH do not seem to sustain with discontinuation. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the routine use of rTMS for CDH prophylaxis remains questionable. REGISTRATION: Protocol preregistered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021250100).
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.