ReviewJournal of pain research2025
The Short- and Long-Term Efficacy of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Migraine: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has shown promising potential in the treatment of migraine; however, its short- and long-term efficacy remains uncertain. This meta-analysis evaluated the effects of NIBS on multiple migraine-related clinical outcomes in both short- and long-term follow-ups. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant review (PROSPERO: CRD42024529488) included RCTs on NIBS for migraine. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, and VIP up to April 11, 2024. Outcomes consisted of headache frequency, pain intensity, duration, analgesic intake, and adverse effects. Analyses used RevMan 5.3 and STATA 17.0. Results: Thirteen studies (596 participants) were included. In terms of short-term outcomes, NIBS significantly reduced headache frequency (SMD = -1.47, 95% CI: -2.13 to -0.82) and pain intensity (SMD = -2.09, 95% CI: -3.36 to -0.83). During long-term follow-up, significant effects were still observed at <3 months (headache frequency: SMD = -1.13, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.35; pain intensity: -0.66 95% CI: -1.02 to -0.30) and at 6-12 months (headache frequency: SMD = -3.95, 95% CI: -7.44 to -0.45; pain intensity: SMD = -2.55 95% CI: -4.73 to -0.36, with no significant improvements at 3-6 months. NIBS also provided short-term benefits in pain duration and analgesic use. Adverse event rates did not differ between groups. Meta-regression linked target and device to short-term efficacy. Conclusion: NIBS is an effective, preventive, and safe treatment for migraine but its long-term efficacy is not evident.
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.