ReviewBrain & spine2026
Efficacy of intracranial surgical treatments for chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Brain & spine, 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
Introduction: Treatment-refractory chronic pain is a prevalent condition affecting a significant portion of the population. Available treatment strategies range from non-invasive to invasive approaches, including several surgical procedures. The most commonly reported intracranial neurosurgical interventions are deep brain stimulation (DBS) and ablative techniques such as cingulotomy, thalamotomy, and mesencephalotomy. Research question: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different intracranial surgical treatments for refractory chronic pain through a systematic review and meta-analysis, focusing on quantitative trends in clinical pain outcomes. Material and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: In total, 75 studies including 666 patients that underwent at least one surgical procedure, with nearly half achieving significant pain reduction (>50%). A meta-analysis compared surgical treatments; where mesencephalotomy was excluded due to insufficient data. Pain levels at baseline were compared at four follow-up periods: T1 (≤1 month), T2 (>1-≤6 months), T3 (>6-≤12 months), and T4 (>12 months). Wilcoxon tests demonstrated statistically significant differences between baseline and the latest follow-up for all included methods: DBS: p < 0.001, g = 1.44 85-90%; cingulotomy: p < 0.001, g = 2.6 > 95%; thalamotomy: p < 0.001, g = 0.92 ≈ 74%. Comparisons between follow-up time points were possible only for DBS, which also showed significant differences (p < 0.05). Discussion and conclusion: Our findings indicate that intracranial surgical procedures for chronic pain are effective/safe and may maintain their clinical benefit for months following treatment. Furthermore, substantial variability in clinical outcomes was observed, even after stratification according to etiology and target groups.
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.