Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation in central post-stroke pain: A systematic review.

IF 1.5 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-07-03 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1515/sjpain-2023-0130
Rita Sotto Mayor, Natália R Ferreira, Camile Lanzaro, Miguel Castelo-Branco, Ana Valentim, Helena Donato, Teresa Lapa
{"title":"Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation in central post-stroke pain: A systematic review.","authors":"Rita Sotto Mayor, Natália R Ferreira, Camile Lanzaro, Miguel Castelo-Branco, Ana Valentim, Helena Donato, Teresa Lapa","doi":"10.1515/sjpain-2023-0130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) in the treatment of central post-stroke pain (CPSP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation versus placebo or other usual therapy in patients with CPSP. Articles in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and French were included. A bibliographic search was independently conducted on June 1, 2022, by two authors, using the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. The risk of bias was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,674 records were identified after removing duplicates, of which 5 eligible studies were included, involving a total of 119 patients. All five studies evaluated repetitive TMS, four of which stimulated the primary motor cortex (M1) and one stimulated the premotor/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Only the former one reported a significant pain reduction in the short term, while the latter one was interrupted due to a consistent lack of analgesic effect.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NBS in the M1 area seems to be effective in reducing short-term pain; however, more high-quality homogeneous studies, with long-term follow-up, are required to determine the efficacy of this treatment in CSPS.</p>","PeriodicalId":47407,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2023-0130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) in the treatment of central post-stroke pain (CPSP).

Methods: We included randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation versus placebo or other usual therapy in patients with CPSP. Articles in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and French were included. A bibliographic search was independently conducted on June 1, 2022, by two authors, using the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. The risk of bias was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Results: A total of 2,674 records were identified after removing duplicates, of which 5 eligible studies were included, involving a total of 119 patients. All five studies evaluated repetitive TMS, four of which stimulated the primary motor cortex (M1) and one stimulated the premotor/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Only the former one reported a significant pain reduction in the short term, while the latter one was interrupted due to a consistent lack of analgesic effect.

Conclusion: NBS in the M1 area seems to be effective in reducing short-term pain; however, more high-quality homogeneous studies, with long-term follow-up, are required to determine the efficacy of this treatment in CSPS.

无创经颅脑刺激治疗中枢性卒中后疼痛:系统综述。
背景:本系统综述旨在分析非侵入性脑刺激(NBS)治疗中枢性卒中后疼痛(CPSP)的疗效:本系统综述旨在分析无创脑部刺激(NBS)治疗中枢性卒中后疼痛(CPSP)的疗效:我们纳入了测试经颅磁刺激(TMS)或经颅直流电刺激与安慰剂或其他常规疗法对中枢性卒中后疼痛患者疗效的随机对照试验。试验包括英语、葡萄牙语、西班牙语、意大利语和法语文章。2022年6月1日,两位作者使用MEDLINE(PubMed)、Embase(Elsevier)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册数据库(CENTRAL)、Scopus和Web of Science核心数据库独立进行了文献检索。使用第二版 Cochrane 偏倚风险(RoB 2)工具评估偏倚风险,并通过 "建议评估、发展和评价分级 "对证据的确定性进行评估:除去重复的记录后,共找到 2,674 条记录,其中有 5 项符合条件的研究被纳入,共涉及 119 名患者。所有五项研究都对重复性 TMS 进行了评估,其中四项研究刺激了初级运动皮层(M1),一项研究刺激了运动前/背外侧前额叶皮层。只有前一项研究报告称短期内疼痛明显减轻,而后一项研究则因始终缺乏镇痛效果而中断:结论:M1 区的 NBS 似乎能有效减轻短期疼痛;但要确定这种疗法对 CSPS 的疗效,还需要更多高质量的同质研究和长期随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Scandinavian Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
73
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信