SynthesisBMC complementary medicine and therapies2026
Effectiveness of neuromodulation techniques for migraine prophylaxis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2026. 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
backgroundGiven limited efficacy and potential complications of pharmacological approaches, neuromodulation techniques are emerging as non-pharmacological alternatives for migraine prevention. The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of neurostimulation interventions for migraine prophylaxis.
methodsThe PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and International Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinical Trial Registry databases were systematically searched up to February 7th, 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest were changes in monthly migraine days, response rate and changes in pain intensity. Network meta-analyses were based on a Bayesian framework.
resultsForty RCTs (N = 4341; mean age = 38.7 years; % females = 81.2) were included in the network meta-analysis. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), percutaneous mastoid electrical stimulation (PMES), supraorbital transcutaneous stimulation (STS), and acupuncture were associated with significant improvements in migraine frequency, response rate and pain severity. Both invasive and non-invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) demonstrated significantly higher response rates relative to sham controls. Among all the investigated interventions, tES (SUCRA = 82%; SMD = 0.9; 95% CrI = 0.32, 1) yielded the greatest reduction in monthly migraine days, transcutaneous ONS (tONS) (SUCRA = 90%; RR = 12; 95% CrI = 1.9, 389) exhibited the highest response rate, and PMES (SUCRA = 96%; SMD = 2.4; 95% CrI = 0.75, 3.4) yielded the most decreased pain intensity after intervention.
conclusionsThe main findings of this study highlight the beneficial effect of tES and tONS in reducing migraine frequency and improving treatment response, respectively. Due to scanty evidence for certain interventions and network model limitations, caution is needed when interpreting the results. Future large-scale and well-conducted RCTs are required to strengthen the reliability and validity of the findings.
trial registrationThe study protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Registration Number: CRD42025642688.
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.