SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
The effect of different transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols on pain scores in patients with neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
Objective: To evaluate the effects of various transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) parameters-including stimulation duration, intensity, pulse number, frequency, and target region-on pain scores in patients with neuropathic pain (NP). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of TMS on NP were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were analyzed using Stata 18.0 with a random-effects model. Meta-regression, subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses were also performed. Results: A total of 14 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled findings showed that rTMS was associated with significant improvements in pain outcomes, as reflected by reductions in VAS scores (SMD = -0.86, 95% CI: -1.51 to -0.22, P = 0.01) and SF-MPQ scores (MD = -5.79, 95% CI: -6.36 to -5.22, P < 0.001) in patients with NP. By contrast, no significant effect was detected for NRS scores (MD = -0.41, 95% CI: -1.07 to 0.25, P = 0.22). Further subgroup analyses suggested that studies characterized by a shorter intervention period (<2 weeks), fewer total pulses (<2000), higher stimulation frequency (≥10 Hz), and lower motor threshold (<90% RMT) were more likely to report significant reductions in VAS scores. Nevertheless, none of these subgroup comparisons demonstrated a statistically significant difference when compared with their respective reference categories, including intervention period ≥2 weeks, total pulse number ≥2000, stimulation frequency <10 Hz, and motor threshold ≥90% RMT. In contrast, stimulation delivered to non-M1 targets also produced a significant decrease in VAS scores, and the between-subgroup comparison indicated a significant difference relative to stimulation over the M1 region. Conclusion: rTMS is effective in reducing VAS pain scores in patients with NP. However, given the limited sample size, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251013132.
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.