SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Efficacy and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with rehabilitation training for chronic spinal pain: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation on central poststroke pain: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Medicine · 2026Trial
- Comparative Efficacy of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Pain, Anxiety, and Depression: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.Pain and therapy · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), is a potential treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, its efficacy and safety remain inconclusive. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the clinical benefits of NIBS for pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with CLBP were evaluated. Five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus) were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of NIBS for CLBP. The final review included 21 RCTs involving 744 participants. The included studies assessed pain intensity, disability, and QoL outcomes, along with adverse events. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the RoB-2 tool, and meta-analyses were conducted using the R platform. NIBS was found to significantly reduce pain intensity (standardised mean difference [SMD] = − 0.85 [− 1.21, − 0.49]) and disability (SMD = − 0.52 [− 0.89, − 0.16]) compared with sham or control interventions. Subgroup analyses revealed that tDCS yielded broader benefits for both pain (SMD = − 0.80) and disability (SMD = − 0.59), while rTMS had the largest effect on pain reduction (SMD = − 1.09). tDCS targeting the primary motor cortex (M1) showed the strongest effects on pain relief (SMD = − 0.95) and functional improvement (SMD = − 0.59), while dorsolateral prefrontal cortex stimulation also yielded significant benefits for both pain (SMD = − 0.64) and disability (SMD = − 0.65). There is very low to moderate evidence that NIBS can help relieve pain and reduce disability in individuals with CLBP.
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.