SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for central post-stroke pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation on central poststroke pain: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Medicine · 2026Trial
- Neuromodulation strategies in postburn care for pain rehabilitation and scar remodelling.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- "Tone-Arm" Neuromodulation MEMS Microcoil for In Vivo Imaging.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Development of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for central poststroke pain: A review.Medicine · 2025Review
- Advancements in Modern Treatment Approaches for Central Post-Stroke Pain: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The role of spinal neurons targeted by corticospinal neurons in central poststroke neuropathic pain.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Article
- Neuromodulation approaches and applications in the management of post-stroke pain: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although rare, central post-stroke pain remains one of the most refractory forms of neuropathic pain. It has been reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be effective in these cases of pain. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of rTMS in patients with central post-stroke pain (CPSP). Methods: We included randomized controlled trials or Controlled Trials published until October 3rd, 2022, which studied the effect of rTMS compared to placebo in CPSP. We included studies of adult patients (>18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke, in which the intervention consisted of the application of rTMS to treat CSP. Results: Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis; 6 studies (4 RCT and 2 non-RCT), with 180 participants, were included in the quantitative analysis. A significant reduction in CPSP was found in favor of rTMS compared with sham, with a large effect size (SMD: -1.45; 95% CI: -1.87; -1.03; Conclusion: The findings of the present systematic review with meta-analysis suggest that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of rTMS in reducing CPSP. Systematic review registration: Identifier (CRD42022365655).
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.