SynthesisBrain and behavior2026
Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Migraine: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare and rank the efficacy and acceptability of different noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques for migraine treatment in adults.
methodWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through October 13, 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with migraine. The primary outcomes were changes in monthly migraine days (MMD) and dropout rates, analyzed using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with I
resultThis NMA integrated data from 28 RCTs encompassing 1920 participants. Among the evaluated interventions, visual cortex (V1) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over Oz-Cz (VC-tDCS-OzCz)-an anodal protocol targeting the V1-ranked highest for reducing MMD (mean difference [MD] = -1.75; 95% CI: -3.37 to -0.13; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]: 83.5%). For acceptability, only transcutaneous occipital nerve stimulation (tONS) significantly reduced dropout rates versus sham (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.16-0.82).
conclusionAmong the interventions evaluated, VC-tDCS-OzCz showed the largest reduction in MMD. However, these findings are based on predominantly moderate-to-low certainty evidence (GRADE), substantial heterogeneity, and a sparse network; they require confirmation in adequately powered, protocol-standardized trials.
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.