ArticleNeurology and therapy2025
Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Intensity of Post-dural Puncture Headache: Results of Two Randomized Sham Controlled Trials.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06640634 (Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Postdural Puncture Headache), which is not on this 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.
Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Postdural Puncture Headache: Results of Two Randomized Sham - Controlled Trials
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The clinical efficacy of auricular acupuncture in the treatment of frequent episodic tension-type headache: a single-blind randomized controlled trial.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPost-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a common complication of diagnostic lumbar puncture (LP), often leading to extended hospitalization and additional medication use. Clinical studies have shown that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) is effective against migraine, and thus we decided to assess whether a-tDCS was also effective in treating and preventing PDPH.
methodsIn two independent, randomized, monocentric controlled trials (RCTs), we enrolled 97 hospitalized participants who underwent LP for diagnostic purposes. Patients were randomized to receive either active a-tDCS or sham tDCS over the dominant primary motor cortex (M1) in a therapeutic tDCS (Th-tDCS) or preventive tDCS (Pr-tDCS) study. In the two trials, the primary outcome was the severity of PDPH measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. Secondary outcomes included the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) to evaluate other pain-related symptoms associated with LP.
resultsIn the Th-tDCS study, significant differences between groups were observed after tDCS in the VAS (F = 17.011, p < 0.001), as well as in BPI intensity (F = 17.006, p < 0.001) and BPI interference (F = 14.730, p < 0.001). Moreover, in the Pr-tDCS study, VAS analysis showed a significant time × group interaction (F = 6.918, p = 0.002). Significant differences were also observed in BPI intensity (F = 17.866, p < 0.001) and BPI interference (F = 15.520, p < 0.001).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that a-tDCS may effectively prevent and treat PDPH and alleviate other pain-related symptoms associated with LP. Encouraging results have emerged for the use of a-tDCS in patients undergoing LP, in both experimental research designs (Th-tDCS and Pr-tDCS). A non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique, such as a-tDCS, could have a therapeutic and preventive effect on pain resulting from a LP.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT06640634) retrospectively registered on October 8, 2024.
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.