SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Cerebellar tDCS and pain modulation: a critical integrative and systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) has emerged as a promising non-invasive neuromodulatory approach for managing pain. Early evidence suggests beneficial effects on pain perception in both healthy individuals and patients with chronic pain. However, the underlying mechanisms and clinical efficacy remain unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the current evidence on cerebellar involvement in pain processing and to evaluate the potential of ctDCS as a therapeutic intervention. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, following PRISMA guidelines. MeSH and Emtree descriptors related to "Cerebellum," "Pain," and "tDCS" were used to identify relevant studies published up to December 11, 2024. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effects of ctDCS on pain. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 (RoB 2). Results: Of 819 records screened, five RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The primary methodological limitations included incomplete reporting of randomization procedures and inadequate blinding of outcome assessors. Two studies lacked key demographic and clinical details, while one showed a high risk of bias due to repeated same-day stimulation. Despite these issues, Across the included studies anodal ctDCS generally increased pain thresholds and enhanced endogenous pain inhibition, whereas cathodal ctDCS tended to reduce thresholds. Neurophysiological findings supported these behavioral results, with EEG data showing modulation of cortical activity related to pain processing. Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest that ctDCS may modulate nociceptive pathways and enhance pain inhibition. However, the small number of studies and methodological heterogeneity limit the generalizability of current results. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to optimize stimulation protocols, assess long-term effects, and establish clinical benefits. This review supports the cerebellum as a relevant and underexplored target for neuromodulatory pain interventions.
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.