Motor Cortex Reorganization and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Pain-A Methodological Study

Optimal Frequency in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Management of Chronic Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to be effective for pain modulation in a variety of pathological conditions causing neuropathic pain. The purpose of this study is to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized control trials to identify the most optimal frequency required to achieve chronic pain modulation using rTMS.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of rTMS for chronic pain management. A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria, and a NMA was conducted to identify the most effective rTMS frequency for chronic pain management.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed that high frequency rTMS (20 Hz) was the most effective frequency for chronic pain modulation. Patients treated with 20 Hz had lower pain levels than those treated at 5 Hz (mean difference [MD] = -3.11 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -5.61 - -0.61], P = 0.032) and control (MD = -1.99 [95% CI: -3.11 - -0.88], P = 0.023). Similarly, treatment with 10 Hz had lower pain levels compared to 5 Hz (MD = -2.56 [95% CI: -5.05 - -0.07], P = 0.045) and control (MD = -1.44 [95% CI: -2.52 - -0.36], P = 0.031). 20 Hz and 10 Hz were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA suggests that high frequency rTMS (20 Hz) is the most optimal frequency for chronic pain modulation. These findings have important clinical implications and can guide healthcare professionals in selecting the most effective frequency for rTMS treatment in patients with chronic pain.

High frequency neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in post-stroke shoulder pain: A double-blinded, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the effect of 5Hz neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the affected primary motor cortex (M1) on pain, the effect of pain on activities of daily living, disability, mood, neurophysiological parameters and passive shoulder joint range of motion in patients with post-stroke shoulder pain.

DESIGN

Twenty two patients were randomized into an experimental group (rTMS, n=7) who received daily rTMS 5Hz 1000 pulses, five times/week for three weeks (15 sessions) to the affected M1 and a control group (n=11) who received sham stimulation. Outcome measures were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (Quick DASH), Hospital Depression Anxiety Scale (HADS), joint range of motion (ROM) measurements, neurophysiological parameters. Selected outcome measures were performed before treatment (T0), after the 5th session (T1) of rTMS treatment, after the 10th session (T2), after the 15th session (T3), and four weeks after the end of the treatment (T4). In the analysis of the outcomes, within-group comparisons were performed by using the Wilcoxon or Friedman test and between-group comparisons were performed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between and within groups in terms of change- and followup scores in the NRS measurements (p>0.05). BPI scale was found to be lower in rTMS group at T0 and T3 (p= 0.010). Quick-DASH scores at T4 were found to be significantly lower in rTMS group (p= 0.032). However, no difference was found within each group over time (p>0.05) and there was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of change scores (T3-T0 and T4-T0) (p>0.05) for BPI and Quick-DASH. In rTMS group, there was a statistically significant difference in shoulder external rotation at T3 compared to the baseline (T0) (p=0.039). However, the magnitude of external rotation change (T3-T0) with the treatment was comparable in the groups. No statistically significant change occurred in both treatment groups in other range of motion measurements.

CONCLUSION

High frequency neuronavigated rTMS to the affected M1 did not show any significant beneficial effect on pain, activities of daily living, disability, anxiety and depression, neurophysiological measurements and passive ROM over sham stimulation.

Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have demonstrated their potential for chronic pain management, yet their efficacy exhibits variability across studies. Refining stimulation targets and exploring additional targets offer a possible solution to this challenge. This study aimed to identify potential brain surface targets for NIBS in treating chronic pain disorders by integrating literature review, neuroimaging meta-analysis, and functional connectivity analysis on 90 chronic low back pain patients. Our results showed that the primary motor cortex (M1) (C3/C4, 10-20 EEG system) and prefrontal cortex (F3/F4/Fz) were the most used brain stimulation targets for chronic pain treatment according to the literature review. The bilateral precentral gyrus (M1), supplementary motor area, Rolandic operculum, and temporoparietal junction, were all identified as common potential NIBS targets through both a meta-analysis sourced from Neurosynth and functional connectivity analysis. This study presents a comprehensive summary of the current literature and refines the existing NIBS targets through a combination of imaging meta-analysis and functional connectivity analysis for chronic pain conditions. The derived coordinates (with integration of the international electroencephalography (EEG) 10/20 electrode placement system) within the above brain regions may further facilitate the localization of these targets for NIBS application. Our findings may have the potential to expand NIBS target selection beyond current clinical trials and improve chronic pain treatment.

Beyond trial-and-error: Individualizing therapeutic transcranial neuromodulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the motor cortex provides supplementary relief for some individuals with chronic pain who are refractory to pharmacological treatment. As rTMS slowly enters treatment guidelines for pain relief, its starts to be confronted with challenges long known to pharmacological approaches: efficacy at the group-level does not grant pain relief for a particular patient. In this review, we present and discuss a series of ongoing attempts to overcome this therapeutic challenge in a personalized medicine framework.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Relevant scientific publications published in main databases such as PubMed and EMBASE from inception until March 2023 were systematically assessed, as well as a wide number of studies dedicated to the exploration of the mechanistic grounds of rTMS analgesic effects in humans, primates and rodents.

RESULTS

The main strategies reported to personalize cortical neuromodulation are: (i) the use of rTMS to predict individual response to implanted motor cortex stimulation; (ii) modifications of motor cortex stimulation patterns; (iii) stimulation of extra-motor targets; (iv) assessment of individual cortical networks and rhythms to personalize treatment; (v) deep sensory phenotyping; (vi) personalization of location, precision and intensity of motor rTMS. All approaches except (i) have so far low or moderate levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although current evidence for most strategies under study remains at best moderate, the multiple mechanisms set up by cortical stimulation are an advantage over single-target 'clean' drugs, as they can influence multiple pathophysiologic paths and offer multiple possibilities of individualization.

SIGNIFICANCE

Non-invasive neuromodulation is on the verge of personalised medicine. Strategies ranging from integration of detailed clinical phenotyping into treatment design to advanced patient neurophysiological characterisation are being actively explored and creating a framework for actual individualisation of care.

Brain stimulation for chronic pain management: a narrative review of analgesic mechanisms and clinical evidence

Chronic pain constitutes one of the most common chronic complaints that people experience. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs longer than 3 months. Chronic pain has a significant impact on individuals' well-being and psychosocial health and the economy of healthcare systems as well. Despite the availability of numerous therapeutic modalities, treatment of chronic pain can be challenging. Only about 30% of individuals with non-cancer chronic pain achieve improvement from standard pharmacological treatment. Therefore, numerous therapeutic approaches were proposed as a potential treatment for chronic pain including non-opioid pharmacological agents, nerve blocks, acupuncture, cannabidiol, stem cells, exosomes, and neurostimulation techniques. Although some neurostimulation methods such as spinal cord stimulation were successfully introduced into clinical practice as a therapy for chronic pain, the current evidence for brain stimulation efficacy in the treatment of chronic pain remains unclear. Hence, this narrative literature review aimed to give an up-to-date overview of brain stimulation methods, including deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, cranial electrotherapy stimulation, and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation as a potential treatment for chronic pain.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation regulates neuroinflammation in neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a frequent condition caused by a lesion in, or disease of, the central or peripheral somatosensory nervous system and is associated with excessive inflammation in the central and peripheral nervous systems. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a supplementary treatment for NP. In clinical research, rTMS of 5-10 Hz is widely placed in the primary motor cortex (M1) area, mostly at 80%-90% RMT, and 5-10 treatment sessions could produce an optimal analgesic effect. The degree of pain relief increases greatly when stimulation duration is greater than 10 days. Analgesia induced by rTMS appears to be related to reestablishing the neuroinflammation system. This article discussed the influences of rTMS on the nervous system inflammatory responses, including the brain, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia (DRG), and peripheral nerve involved in the maintenance and exacerbation of NP. rTMS has shown an anti-inflammation effect by decreasing pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, and increasing anti-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-10 and BDNF, in cortical and subcortical tissues. In addition, rTMS reduces the expression of glutamate receptors (mGluR5 and NMDAR2B) and microglia and astrocyte markers (Iba1 and GFAP). Furthermore, rTMS decreases nNOS expression in ipsilateral DRGs and peripheral nerve metabolism and regulates neuroinflammation.

Research Hotspots and Effectiveness of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis

Transcranial magnetic stimulation, as a relatively new type of treatment, is a safe and non-invasive method for pain therapy. Here, we used CiteSpace software to visually analyze 440 studies concerning transcranial magnetic stimulation in pain research from 2010 to 2021, indexed by Web of Science, to clarify the research hotspots in different periods and characterize the process of discovery in this field. The United States ranked first in this field. Lefaucheur JP, Fregni F, and Andrade ACD made great contributions to this field of study. The most prolific institution was University of São Paulo. The four main hot keywords were neuropathic pain, motor cortex, connectivity, and non-invasive brain stimulation. There were three main points that were generally accepted: (1) definite analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of M1 contralateral to pain side in neuropathic pain; (2) there are inconclusive recommendations regarding rTMS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain; (3) there is low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex may have short-term effects on chronic pain. This bibliometric analysis indicated that prospective, multi-center, large-sample, randomized controlled trials are still needed to further verify the effectiveness of various transcranial magnetic stimulation parameters in pain research.

Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Different Stimulus Parameters for Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1-rTMS) using different stimulation parameters to explore the optimal stimulus condition for treating neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, blinded, crossover exploratory study. Four single sessions of M1-rTMS at different parameters were administered in random order. The tested stimulation conditions were as follows: 5-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 2000 pulses per session, and sham stimulation. Analgesic effects were assessed by determining the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity score and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ2) score immediately before and immediately after intervention.

RESULTS

We enrolled 22 adults (age: 59.8 ± 12.1 years) with intractable neuropathic pain. Linear-effects models showed significant effects of the stimulation condition on changes in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.01). Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that 10-Hz rTMS with 2000 pulses provided better pain relief than sham stimulation, with greater decreases in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that high-dose stimulation (specifically, 10-Hz rTMS at 2000 pulses) is more effective than lower-dose stimulation for treating neuropathic pain.

A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targeting M1 and S2 in Central Poststroke Pain: A Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVES

Central poststroke pain (CPSP), a neuropathic pain condition, is difficult to treat. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted to the primary motor cortex (M1) can alleviate the condition, but not all patients respond. We aimed to assess a promising alternative rTMS target, the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2), for CPSP treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled three-arm crossover trial assessed navigated rTMS (nrTMS) targeted to M1 and S2 (10 sessions, 5050 pulses per session at 10 Hz). Participants were evaluated for pain, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, upper limb function, and three plasticity-related gene polymorphisms including Dopamine D2 Receptor (DRD2). We monitored pain intensity and interference before and during stimulations and at one month. A conditioned pain modulation test was performed using the cold pressor test. This assessed the efficacy of the descending inhibitory system, which may transmit TMS effects in pain control.

RESULTS

We prescreened 73 patients, screened 29, and included 21, of whom 17 completed the trial. NrTMS targeted to S2 resulted in long-term (from baseline to one-month follow-up) pain intensity reduction of ≥30% in 18% (3/17) of participants. All stimulations showed a short-term effect on pain (17-20% pain relief), with no difference between M1, S2, or sham stimulations, indicating a strong placebo effect. Only nrTMS targeted to S2 resulted in a significant long-term pain intensity reduction (15% pain relief). The cold pressor test reduced CPSP pain intensity significantly (p = 0.001), indicating functioning descending inhibitory controls. The homozygous DRD2 T/T genotype is associated with the M1 stimulation response.

CONCLUSIONS

S2 is a promising nrTMS target in the treatment of CPSP. The DRD2 T/T genotype might be a biomarker for M1 nrTMS response, but this needs confirmation from a larger study.

Efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic facial pain of two consecutive treatment periods of rTMS applied over the facial motor cortex, using protocols differing in stimulation frequency, duration, and train pattern

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an open-label cross-over study assessing the global effect of two high-frequency protocols of electric-field navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted to functional facial motor cortex and comparing their efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic facial pain. Outcome predictors were also assessed.

METHODS

We randomized twenty consecutive patients with chronic facial pain (post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain, n=14; persistent idiopathic facial pain, n=4; secondary trigeminal neuralgia, n=2) to receive two distinct 5-day rTMS interventions (10Hz, 2400 pulses and 20Hz, 3600 pulses) separated by six weeks. The target area was assessed by mapping of lower face representation. The primary endpoint was the change in weekly mean of pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS) between the baseline and therapy week (1^st week), and follow-up weeks (2^nd and 3^rd weeks) for each rTMS intervention. Response was defined using a combination scale including the patient's global impression of change and continuance with maintenance treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, pain intensity NRS decreased from 7.4 at baseline to 5.9 ten weeks later, after the second rTMS intervention (p=0.009). The repetition of the treatment had a significant effect (F=4.983, p=0.043) indicating that the NRS scores are lower during the second four weeks period. Eight (40%) patients were responders, 4 (20%) exhibited a modest effect, 4 (20%) displayed no effect, and 4 (20%) experienced worsening of pain. High disability and high pain intensity (>7) predicted a better outcome (p=0.043 and p=0.045). Female gender, shorter duration of pain and low Beck Anxiety Inventory scores showed a trend towards a better outcome (p=0.052, 0.060 and 0.055, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS targeted to face M1 alleviates treatment resistant chronic facial pain. Repeated treatment improves the analgesic effect. A protocol with higher frequency (above 10Hz), longer session duration (more than 20 minutes) and higher number of pulses (above 2400 pulses/session) did not improve the outcome. The results support early consideration of rTMS.

Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is vast published literature proposing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology on the motor cortex (M1) for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). Systematic reviews (SRs) focus on a specific problem and do not provide a comprehensive overview of a research area. This study aimed to summarize and analyze the evidence of rTMS on the M1 for NP treatment through a new synthesis method called evidence mapping.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and The Cochrane Library to identify the studies that summarized the effectiveness of rTMS for NP. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, was included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed by using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted following a defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions [frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)] and compared. The evidence map was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 38 SRs met the eligibility criteria. After duplicate primary studies were removed, these reviews included 70 primary studies that met the scope of evidence mapping. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the quality of the included SRs was critically low. Of these studies, 34 SRs scored "critically low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SR scored "low," 1 SR scored "moderate," and 1 SR scored "high."

CONCLUSION

Evidence mapping is a useful methodology to provide a comprehensive and reliable overview of studies on rTMS for NP. Evidence mapping also shows that further investigations are necessary to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols and standardize all parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Given that the methodological quality of most included SRs was "critically low," further investigations are advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

The Application of Technological Intervention for Stroke Rehabilitation in Southeast Asia: A Scoping Review With Stakeholders' Consultation

Background

The technological intervention is considered as an adjunct to the conventional therapies applied in the rehabilitation session. In most high-income countries, technology has been widely used in assisting stroke survivors to undergo their treatments. However, technology use is still lacking in Southeast Asia, especially in middle- and low-income countries. This scoping review identifies and summarizes the technologies and related gaps available in Southeast Asia pertaining to stroke rehabilitation.

Methods

The JBI manual for evidence synthesis was used to conduct a scoping study. Until September 2021, an electronic search was performed using four databases (Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, ASEAN Citation Index). Only the studies that were carried out in Southeast Asia were chosen.

Results

Forty-one articles were chosen in the final review from 6,873 articles found during the initial search. Most of the studies reported the implementation of technological intervention combined with conventional therapies in stroke rehabilitation. Advanced and simple technologies were found such as robotics, virtual reality, telerehabilitation, motion capture, assistive devices, and mobility training from Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The majority of the studies show that technological interventions can enhance the recovery period of stroke survivors. The consultation session suggested that the technological interventions should facilitate the needs of the survivors, caregivers, and practitioners during the rehabilitation.

Conclusions

The integration of technology into conventional therapies has shown a positive outcome and show significant improvement during stroke recovery. Future studies are recommended to investigate the potential of home-based technological intervention and lower extremities.

Difference in Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation According to the Site of Pain

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex for neuropathic pain has been shown to be effective, according to systematic reviews and therapeutic guidelines. However, our large, rigorous, investigator-initiated, registration-directed clinical trial failed to show a positive primary outcome, and its subgroup analysis suggested that the analgesic effect varied according to the site of pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in analgesic effects of rTMS for neuropathic pain between different pain sites by reviewing our previous clinical trials. We included three clinical trials in this mini meta-analysis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial at seven hospitals (N = 64), an investigator-initiated registration-directed clinical trial at three hospitals (N = 142), and an exploratory clinical trial examining different stimulation parameters (N = 22). The primary efficacy endpoint (change in pain scale) was extracted for each patient group with pain in the face, upper limb, or lower limb, and a meta-analysis of the efficacy of active rTMS against sham stimulation was performed. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for pain change using a random-effects model. The analgesic effect of rTMS for upper limb pain was favorable (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.13). In contrast, rTMS did not produce significant pain relief on lower limb pain (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.41) or face (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -1.59 to 1.12). In conclusion, these findings suggest that rTMS provides analgesic effects in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb, but not in the lower limb or face, under the conditions of previous clinical trials. Owing to the main limitation of small number of studies included, many aspects should be clarified by further research and high-quality studies in these patients.

High-frequency rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on chronic and provoked pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-frequency rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has demonstrated mixed effects on chronic and provoked pain.

OBJECTIVES/METHODS

In this study, a meta-analysis was conducted to characterise the potential analgesic effects of high-frequency rTMS over the DLPFC on both chronic and provoked pain.

RESULTS

A total of 626 studies were identified in a systematic search. Twenty-six eligible studies were included for the quantitative review, among which 17 modulated chronic pain and the remaining investigated the influence on provoked pain. The left side DLPFC was uniformly targeted in the chronic pain studies. While our data identified no overall effect of TMS across chronic pain conditions, there was a significant short-term analgesia in neuropathic pain conditions only (SMD = -0.87). In terms of long-lasting analgesia, there was an overall pain reduction in the midterm (SMD = -0.53, 24.6 days average) and long term (SMD = -0.63, 3 months average) post DLPFC stimulation, although these effects were not observed within specific chronic pain conditions. Surprisingly, the number of sessions was demonstrated to have no impact on rTMS analgesia. In the analysis of provoked pain, our data also indicated a significant analgesic effect following HF-rTMS over the DLPFC (SMD = -0.73). Importantly, we identified a publication bias in the studies of provoked pain but not for chronic pain conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our findings support that HF-DLPFC stimulation is able to induce an analgesic effect in chronic pain and in response to provoked pain. These results highlight the potential of DLPFC-rTMS in the management of certain chronic pain conditions and future directions are discussed to enhance the potential long-term analgesic effects.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treating Chronic Neuropathic Pain: a Systematic Review

Given pharmacological interventions' limited efficacy and abundance of its adverse effects, the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is considered a viable non-invasive option for managing chronic neuropathic pain of different origins with promising outcomes. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The provision of a systematic review of current literature on rTMS for managing chronic neuropathic pain of different origins, and assess its efficacy and outcomes, highlighting the need for standard protocols for utilizing rTMS. RECENT FINDINGS: Variable stimulation modalities were trialed targeting the M1, DLPFC, and somatosensory cortices S1 and S2. The M1 yielded the best results in 11 of the studies. Frequency of stimulation was variable; however, optimal outcome was with higher frequencies ranging 10-20 Hz rather than low-frequency 1 Hz. Repetitive TMS can produce significant relief from chronic neuropathic pain. The lack of standard methods for rTMS, stimulatory parameters, and target stimulation site precludes concluding the optimal modality for stimulation. The practical algorithm by Lefaucheur and Nguyen (Neurophysiol Clin. 49(4):301-7, 2019) can guide setting standardized algorithms for rTMS. Defining optimal stimulation sites, frequencies, and pulses to maximize patient's pain relief and minimize required rTMS sessions requires further research.

A randomized controlled trial of 5 daily sessions and continuous trial of 4 weekly sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Five daily sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with stimulus conditions were ineffective in neuropathic pain relief. Long-term administration should be investigated for clinical use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropathic pain.

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, sham-controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) in patients with neuropathic pain (NP). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 5 daily sessions of active or sham rTMS of M1 corresponding to the part of the body experiencing the worst pain (500 pulses per session at 5 Hz). Responders were invited to enroll in an open-label continuous trial involving 4 weekly sessions of active rTMS. The primary outcome was a mean decrease in a visual analogue scale of pain intensity (scaled 0-100 mm) measured daily during the daily sessions in an intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were other pain scores, quality-of-life measures, and depression score. One hundred forty-four patients were assigned to the active or sham stimulation groups. The primary outcome, mean visual analogue scale decreases, was not significantly different (P = 0.58) between the active stimulation group (mean, 8.0) and the sham group (9.2) during the daily sessions. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between 2 groups. The patients enrolled in the continuous weekly rTMS achieved more pain relief in the active stimulation group compared with the sham (P < 0.01). No serious adverse events were observed. Five daily sessions of rTMS with stimulus conditions used in this trial were ineffective in short-term pain relief in the whole study population with various NP. Long-term administration to the responders should be investigated for the clinical use of rTMS on NP in the future trials.

Neuromodulation Management of Chronic Neuropathic Pain in The Central Nervous system

Neuromodulation is becoming one of the clinical tools for treating chronic neuropathic pain by transmitting controlled physical energy to the pre-identified neural targets in the central nervous system. Its nature of drug-free, non-addictive and improved targeting have attracted increasing attention among neuroscience research and clinical practices. This article provides a brief overview of the neuropathic pain and pharmacological routines for treatment, summarizes both the invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation modalities for pain management, and highlights an emerging brain stimulation technology, transcranial focused ultrasound (tFUS) with a focus on ultrasound transducer devices and the achieved neuromodulation effects and applications on pain management. Practical considerations of spatial guidance for tFUS are discussed for clinical applications. The safety of transcranial ultrasound neuromodulation and its future prospectives on pain management are also discussed.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex in management of chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) with frequencies 5-20 Hz is an expanding non-invasive treatment for chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Outcome data, however, show considerable inhomogeneity with concern to the levels of effect due to the great diversity of treated conditions. The aim of this review was to survey the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of M1 rTMS, and the accuracy to predict a positive response to epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) which is supposed to give a more longstanding pain relief.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to June 2019 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We used the PICO Model to define two specific clinical questions: (1) Does rTMS of M1 relieve NP better than sham treatment? (2) Can the response to rTMS be used to predict the effect of epidural MCS? After article selection, data extraction, and study quality assessment, the certainty of evidence of treatment effect was defined using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Data on 5-20 Hz (high-frequency) rTMS vs. sham was extracted from 24 blinded randomised controlled trials which were of varying quality, investigated highly heterogeneous pain conditions, and used excessively variable stimulation parameters. The difference in pain relief between active and sham stimulation was statistically significant in 9 of 11 studies using single-session rTMS, and in 9 of 13 studies using multiple sessions. Baseline data could be extracted from 6 single and 12 multiple session trials with a weighted mean pain reduction induced by active rTMS, compared to baseline, of -19% for single sessions, -32% for multiple sessions with follow-up <30 days, and -24% for multiple sessions with follow-up ≥30 days after the last stimulation session. For single sessions the weighted mean difference in pain reduction between active rTMS and sham was 15 percentage points, for multiple sessions the difference was 22 percentage points for follow-ups <30 days, and 15 percentage points for follow-ups ≥30 days. Four studies reported data that could be used to evaluate the accuracy of rTMS to predict response to MCS, showing a specificity of 60-100%, and a positive predictive value of 75-100%. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS targeting M1 can result in significant reduction of chronic NP which, however, is transient and shows a great heterogeneity between studies; very low certainty of evidence for single sessions and low for multiple sessions. Multiple sessions of rTMS can maintain a more longstanding effect. rTMS seems to be a fairly good predictor of a positive response to epidural MCS and may be used to select patients for implantation of permanent epidural electrodes. More studies are needed to manifest the use of rTMS for this purpose. Pain relief outcomes in a longer perspective, and outcome variables other than pain reduction need to be addressed more consistently in future studies to consolidate the applicability of rTMS in routine clinical practice.

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to examine the use and efficacy of rTMS for controlling various pain conditions. A PubMed search was conducted for articles that were published until June 7, 2019 and used rTMS for pain alleviation. The key search phrase for identifying potentially relevant articles was (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND pain). The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) patients with pain, (2) rTMS was applied for pain management, and (3) follow-up evaluations were performed after rTMS stimulation to assess the reduction in pain. Review articles were excluded. Overall, 1,030 potentially relevant articles were identified. After reading the titles and abstracts and assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, 106 publications were finally included in our analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that rTMS is beneficial for treating neuropathic pain of various origins, such as central pain, pain from peripheral nerve disorders, fibromyalgia, and migraine. Although data on the use of rTMS for orofacial pain, including trigeminal neuralgia, phantom pain, low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome, pelvic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome, were promising, there was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rTMS for treating these conditions. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the effects of rTMS on pain relief in these conditions. Overall, this review will help guide clinicians in making informed decisions regarding whether rTMS is an appropriate option for managing various pain conditions.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018)

A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

Patient-delivered tDCS on chronic neuropathic pain in prior responders to TMS (a randomized controlled pilot study)

Background

Successful response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex requires continued maintenance treatments. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) may provide a more convenient alternative.

Methods

This pilot study aimed to examine the feasibility of a randomized, double-blind, double-crossover pilot study for patients to self-administer tDCS motor cortex stimulation for 20 minutes/day over five consecutive days. Primary outcomes were as follows: usability of patient-administered tDCS, compliance with device, recruitment, and retention rates. Secondary outcomes were as follows: effect on overall pain levels and quality of life via Short Form-36 anxiety and depression via Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Mini-Mental State scores.

Results

A total of 24 subjects with neuropathic pain, who had previously experienced rTMS motor cortex stimulation (13 with reduction in pain scores, 11 nonresponders) were recruited at the Pain Research Institute, Fazakerley, UK. A total of 21 subjects completed the study. Recruitment rate was 100% but retention rate was only 87.5%. All patients reported satisfactory usability of the tDCS device. No significant difference was shown between Sham vs Anodal (−0.16, 95% CI: −0.43 to 0.11) P=0.43, Sham vs Cathodal (0.11, 95% CI: −0.16 to 0.37) P=0.94, or Cathodal vs Anodal (−0.27, 95% CI: −0.54 to 0.00) P=0.053 treatments. Furthermore, no significant changes were demonstrated in anxiety, depression, or quality of life measurements. The data collected to estimate sample size for a definitive study suggested that the study’s sample size was already large enough to detect a change of 15% in pain levels at 90% power for the overall group of 21 patients.

Conclusion

This study did not show a beneficial effect of tDCS in this group of patients and does not support the need for a larger definitive study using the same experimental paradigm.

Trial registration

ISRCTN56839387

Insights About the Neuroplasticity State on the Effect of Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation in Pain and Disability Associated With Chronic Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial

Background: There is limited evidence concerning the effect of intramuscular electrical stimulation (EIMS) on the neural mechanisms of pain and disability associated with chronic Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS). Objectives: To provide new insights into the EIMS long-term effect on pain and disability related to chronic MPS (primary outcomes). To assess if the neuroplasticity state at baseline could predict the long-term impact of EIMS on disability due to MPS we examined the relationship between the serum brain-derived-neurotrophic-factor (BDNF) and by motor evoked potential (MEP). Also, we evaluated if the EIMS could improve the descending pain modulatory system (DPMS) and the cortical excitability measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) parameters. Methods: We included 24 right-handed female with chronic MPS, 19-65 years old. They were randomically allocated to receive ten sessions of EIMS, 2 Hz at the cervical paraspinal region or a sham intervention (n = 12). Results: A mixed model analysis of variance revealed that EIMS decreased daily pain scores by -73.02% [95% confidence interval (CI) = -95.28 to -52.30] and disability due to pain -43.19 (95%CI, -57.23 to -29.39) at 3 months of follow up. The relative risk for using analgesics was 2.95 (95% CI, 1.36 to 6.30) in the sham group. In the EIMS and sham, the change on the Numerical Pain Scale (NPS0-10) throughout CPM-task was -2.04 (0.79) vs. -0.94 (1.18), respectively, (P = 0.01). EIMS reduced the MEP -28.79 (-53.44 to -4.15), while improved DPMS and intracortical inhibition. The MEP amplitude before treatment [(Beta = -0.61, (-0.58 to -0.26)] and a more significant change from pre- to post-treatment on serum BDNF) (Beta = 0.67; CI95% = 0.07 to 1.26) were predictors to EIMS effect on pain and disability due to pain. Conclusion: These findings suggest that a bottom-up effect induced by the EIMS reduced the analgesic use, improved pain, and disability due to chronic MPS. This effect might be mediated by an enhancing of corticospinal inhibition as seen by an increase in IC and a decrease in MEP amplitude. Likewise, the MEP amplitude before treatment and the changes induced by the EIMS in the serum BDNF predicted it's long-term clinical impact on pain and disability due MPS. The trial is recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02381171.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool for Chronic Pain

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates spontaneous neuronal activity that can generate long-term neuroplastic changes. It has been used in numerous therapeutic trials showing significant clinical effects especially when combined with other behavioral therapies. One area of intensive tDCS research is chronic pain. Since the initial tDCS trials for chronic pain treatment using current parameters of stimulation, more than 60 clinical trials have been published testing its effects in different pain syndromes. However, as the field moves in the direction of clinical application, several aspects need to be taken into consideration regarding tDCS effectiveness and parameters of stimulation. In this article, we reviewed the evidence of tDCS effects for the treatment of chronic pain and critically analyzed the literature pertaining its safety and efficacy, and how to optimize tDCS clinical effects in a therapeutic setting. We discuss optimization of tDCS effects in 3 different domains: (i) parameters of stimulation, (ii) combination therapies, and (iii) subject selection. This article aims to provide insights for the development of future tDCS clinical trials.

TMSmap - Software for Quantitative Analysis of TMS Mapping Results

The use of the MRI-navigation system ensures accurate targeting of TMS. This, in turn, results in TMS motor mapping becoming a routinely used procedure in neuroscience and neurosurgery. However, currently, there is no standardized methodology for assessment of TMS motor-mapping results. Therefore, we developed TMSmap—free standalone graphical interface software for the quantitative analysis of the TMS motor mapping results (http://tmsmap.ru/). In addition to the estimation of standard parameters (such as the size of cortical muscle representation and the center of gravity location), it allows estimation of the volume of cortical representations, excitability profile of the cortical surface map, and the overlap between cortical representations. The input data for the software includes the coordinates of the coil position (or electric field maximum) and the corresponding response in each stimulation point. TMSmap has been developed for versatile assessment and comparison of TMS maps relating to different experimental interventions including, but not limited to longitudinal, pharmacological and clinical studies (e.g., stroke recovery). To illustrate the use of TMSmap we provide examples of the actual TMS motor-mapping analysis of two healthy subjects and one chronic stroke patient.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Strategies for replacing non-invasive brain stimulation sessions: recommendations for designing neurostimulation clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the potential impact of missed visits on the outcomes of neuromodulation treatments, it is not clear how this issue has been addressed in clinical trials. Given this gap in the literature, we reviewed articles on non-invasive brain stimulation in participants with depression or chronic pain, and investigated how missed visits were handled. Areas covered: We performed a search on PUBMED/MEDLINE using the keywords: 'tDCS', 'transcranial direct current stimulation', 'transcranial magnetic stimulation', 'depression', and 'pain'. We included studies with a minimum of five participants who were diagnosed with depression or chronic pain, who underwent a minimum of five tDCS or TMS sessions. A total of 181 studies matched our inclusion criteria, 112 on depression and 69 on chronic pain. Of these, only fifteen (8%) articles reported or had a protocol addressing missed visits. This review demonstrates that, in most of the trials, there is no reported plan to handle missed visits. Expert commentary: Based on our findings and previous studies, we developed suggestions on how to handle missed visits in neuromodulation protocols. A maximum of 20% of missing sessions should be allowed before excluding a patient and these sessions should be replaced at the end of the stimulation period.