SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2025
Comparative efficacy of common rehabilitation treatments for patients with neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2025. 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.
- Clinical management of complications after chronic spinal cord injury: a review of recent advances.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Exosome Cargo Molecules and NLRP3/BDNF: Clinical and Preclinical Evidence for Acupuncture-Mediated Spinal Cord Injury Recovery.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of acupuncture on pain intensity and sleep quality in patients with neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundNeuropathic pain is a prevalent complication following spinal cord injury, imposing severe physical and psychological burdens on affected individuals. It often hinders complete physical and mental recovery. Despite numerous rehabilitation interventions being explored and implemented, the optimal treatment strategy for neuropathic pain post-spinal cord injury remains a subject of ongoing debate. To address this uncertainty, a comprehensive network meta-analysis is imperative. This analysis aims to compare the effectiveness of various rehabilitation interventions and guide clinical staff in selecting the most efficacious treatment to alleviate patients' physical and psychological distress.
methodsEmbase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CNKI, Wan Fang, Vip Journal Integration Platform and Sinomed were searched from the establishment of the database to 13 June 2024. Employing ROB 2.0 and Stata 18.0 for literature selection, quality evaluation and meta-analysis, the effectiveness of various rehabilitation interventions was assessed. These interventions were evaluated using network-level and cumulative level surface under the cumulative ranking area analysis.
resultsThe review included 31 studies involving 1820 patients. According to the cumulative ranking area ranking of 17 therapies, the best three interventions for reducing pain are repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, acupuncture, and intermittent theta burst stimulation.
conclusionsThe intermittent theta burst stimulation treatment demonstrated superior efficacy in managing pain after spinal cord injury, closely followed by acupuncture and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. This analysis provides a solid foundation for clinical staff to select the appropriate therapeutic approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40167861What 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.