Trial reportMedicine2026
The effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation on central poststroke pain: A pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral poststroke pain (CPSP) is neuropathic pain caused by a cerebrovascular lesion. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has been shown to effectively reduce CPSP. Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), an alternative stimulation method to conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, has been shown to have beneficial effects for neuropathic pain. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of iTBS on CPSP and demonstrate the effects using clinical assessment scales.
methodsPatients with CPSP who met the neuropathic pain criteria of the PainDetect questionnaire (PD-Q), Leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS), and Douleur neuropathique 4 questions (DN4) were recruited. Twenty patients were randomly assigned to a real or sham iTBS and underwent 5 sessions of iTBS to the motor cortex. Before the initial stimulation and after the completion of 5 sessions, PD-Q, LANSS, DN4, and numeric rating scale were assessed.
resultsPD-Q, LANSS, DN4, and numeric rating scale decreased significantly in the real iTBS group but not in the sham iTBS group. There were no adverse effects regarding the iTBS sessions.
conclusioniTBS was effective in reducing CPSP. Considering the safety and convenience of application, iTBS can be suggested as an effective treatment for patients with CPSP.
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.