ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2026
[Non-invasive neuromodulation for chronic pain : A review of eight current methods and the evidence].
Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review summarizes the clinical evidence of non-invasive neuromodulation (NINM) in selected chronic pain conditions and examines whether combining neuromodulation with behavioral or psychological pain therapy improves therapeutic outcomes.
methodsClinical studies and meta-analyses investigating NINM in neuropathic pain, migraine, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain were reviewed. Particular attention was given to studies integrating neuromodulation with active physiotherapy or psychological pain therapy.
resultsThe strongest evidence exists for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which demonstrate moderate effects in neuropathic pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia. Other approaches such as cranial electrical stimulation (CES), neurofeedback, and systolic extinction training (SET) show promising but more limited evidence. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is only effective for acute back pain. Across conditions, neuromodulation alone often produces short-term improvements in pain, whereas multimodal interventions combining neuromodulation with behavioral therapy such as neurofeedback and SET appear to produce clinically significant pain reduction and remission. DISCUSSION: A potential explanation for these findings lies in the interaction between neuromodulation and learning processes. Neuromodulatory interventions may transiently increase neural plasticity within the pain network. The reactivation of the brain stem (dorsal-medial nucleus tractus solitarius; dmNTS) might create a window during which adaptive learning processes can be facilitated. Behavioral interventions such as operant pain therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy can reinforce healthy behaviors and adaptive coping through mechanisms of classical and operant conditioning.
conclusionNINM should be considered not only as an isolated intervention but also as a neurophysiological facilitator of learning-based pain therapy. Future research should focus on personalized neuromodulation protocols, multimodal treatment approaches, and the identification of neurophysiological biomarkers that predict treatment response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42283853What 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.