ArticleBrain sciences2025
The Use of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for the Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Fad or Future?
Article in Brain sciences, 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.
- Neuromodulation for Pain Management: Evidence of Safety and Efficacy.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Combining Noninvasive Brain Stimulation and Physiotherapy to Improve the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain in Veterans: Protocol for a Multi-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article aims to offer a broad perspective on the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques in the context of chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) conditions. While NIBS has demonstrated promising efficacy in certain chronic pain populations, its application in the management of CMP remains limited. This paper examines the current evidence supporting the use of NIBS for pain relief in CMP, the rationale and proposed mechanisms of action, the importance of patient selection, common methodological limitations in the existing literature, and the potential adverse effects of these techniques. The authors argue that the current evidence is insufficient to support widespread clinical adoption of NIBS for CMP. Advancing the field will require more rigorous study designs, with adequately powered and properly blinded randomized controlled trials. Additionally, future research should address the identification of potential responders to brain stimulation, conduct economic evaluations, and carefully assess the benefit-risk ratio before NIBS can be integrated into routine clinical practice.
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.