ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Controllable Pulse Parameter Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Control Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Controllable pulse parameter transcranial magnetic stimulation (cTMS) delivers monophasic pulses that may produce more robust and longer-lasting changes in corticospinal excitability compared to conventional biphasic stimulation. This study is the first to evaluate the efficacy of cTMS in individuals with fibromyalgia (FM). Participants and methods: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, 32 participants (48.6 ± 12.3 years, 2 M) completed ten sessions of cTMS or placebo stimulation over 2 weeks, targeting primary motor cortex (M1) using a 10 Hz monophasic protocol (2004 pulses). The primary outcome was pain intensity while secondary outcomes included quality of life (PROMIS-29 v2.0), step count, FM impact, mood, and corticospinal excitability. Results: No significant differences between cTMS or placebo stimulation were observed for pain intensity or secondary outcomes. Exploratory within-group analyses identified a ~12% reduction in pain intensity, increased physical activity, as well as improvements in anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms following cTMS. However, these within-group changes were not significantly different from those observed in the placebo group. Conclusion: Ten sessions of 10 Hz monophasic cTMS were well tolerated but did not demonstrate superiority over placebo for pain intensity or secondary outcomes in individuals with FM. The within-group improvements following cTMS support further investigation in larger and adequately powered studies to determine whether specific stimulation protocols or patient subgroups may benefit greater from monophasic stimulation.
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.