Trial reportEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2025
Impact of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation on Pain Relief and Brain Connectivity in Chronic Low Back Pain.
Trial report in European journal of pain (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Efficacy of Physical Agent Therapies for Chronic Low Back Pain-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Non-invasive brain stimulation for chronic low back pain: current techniques and future perspectives.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis randomised clinical trial investigated the effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) on pain alleviation in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and its underlying mechanisms.
methodsForty CLBP patients were randomly assigned to receive either active or sham iTBS combined with core stability exercise. Pain assessments were completed before and after the intervention. Eleven patients from each group underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging scans pre- and post-intervention to analyse DLPFC activation and connectivity with other brain regions.
resultsThe active iTBS group had a greater pain reduction than the sham group (p = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.009 to 1.109). In the active and sham groups, 80% (16/20) and 40% (8/20) reached the minimal clinically important difference, respectively, with a number needed to treat of 2.5. For the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, there was a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.011, r = 0.40). The active iTBS group showed a significantly enhanced functional connectivity between the left DLPFC and the right cerebellum, as well as both occipital gyri (voxel-level, p < 0.001; cluster-level familywise error rate, p < 0.01). Spearman's correlation analysis showed a significant negative correlation between Numerical Rating Scale and the FC of the left DLPFC and the right cerebellum (rho = -0.55, p = 0.008), the right (rho = -0.439, p = 0.01), and left occipital gyri (rho = -0.45, p = 0.034).
conclusioniTBS may alleviate pain in CLBP patients by enhancing DLPFC connectivity with the cerebellum and occipital gyrus. SIGNIFICANCE: This study showed a facilitatory effect of iTBS on alleviating CLBP, which might be modulated by brain functional connectivity. Trial Registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2200064899.
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.