SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Analgesic efficacy of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques in chronic cancer pain: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hotspots and trends in acupuncture combined with non-invasive neuromodulation technology in the past 20 years: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Static and Repetitive Magnetic Stimulation in Cancer Therapy: A Scoping Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Review
- Exploring Acceptance of Pain Management Strategies in Oncology: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Diagnosis, Management, Treatment, and Prevention of Neuropathies in Cancer Patients.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeChronic pain remains one of the most frequent and disabling symptoms of cancer, arising from tumors and/or treatments, and is poorly controlled in 40% of patients. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is now widely recommended in drug-refractory neuropathic pain, but its effectiveness in chronic cancer-related pain remains unknown. A few observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the effectiveness of NIBS on pain in this population.
methodsA systematic review of neuromodulation studies on patients with chronic cancer-related pain involving transcranial direct currents stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was conducted to estimate the analgesic efficacy, safety and feasibility in clinical routine.
resultsEleven publications (N = 298 patients) were included and analyzed. For tDCS, three RCT had a moderate effect size of 0.7 [0.6; 0.9] on a rating scale (0-10), and two case reports showed a significant decrease of pain intensity on average by -4.25 ± 0.36 points. The rTMS provided similar pain relief, with two RCTs showing a large effect size of 0.9 [0.7; 1.1], two observational study studies reporting a significant pooled effect on pain intensity (-0.9 [-1.6; -0.1] and -2.3 [-3.3; -1.3]), and two case reports where pain was reduced on average by -4.75 ± 0.36 points. None of these studies reported serious adverse events, and discontinuations of treatment were associated with cancer complications.
conclusionsNIBS appears to have an analgesic effect in cancer-related pain. However, due to the high heterogeneity of pain conditions, placebo-controlled trials with larger and homogeneous patient cohorts are required to confirm these promising results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40178728What 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.