The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with group exercise treatment in subjects with chronic low back pain: a pilot randomized control trial

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Sling Exercise Modulates the Motor Cortex in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

The study aims to explore the effects of combining repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with sling exercise (SE) intervention in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). This approach aims to directly stimulate brain circuits and indirectly activate trunk muscles to influence motor cortex plasticity. However, the impact of this combined intervention on motor cortex organization and clinical symptom improvement is still unclear, as well as whether it is more effective than either intervention alone. To investigate this, patients with CLBP were randomly assigned to three groups: SE/rTMS, rTMS alone, and SE alone. Motor cortical organization, numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and postural balance stability were measured before and after a 2-week intervention. The results showed statistically significant differences in the representative location of multifidus on the left hemispheres, as well as in NPRS and ODI scores, in the combined SE/rTMS group after the intervention. When compared to the other two groups, the combined SE/rTMS group demonstrated significantly different motor cortical organization, sway area, and path range from the rTMS alone group, but not from the SE alone group. These findings highlight the potential benefits of a combined SE/rTMS intervention in terms of clinical outcomes and neuroadaptive changes compared to rTMS alone. However, there was no significant difference between the combined intervention and SE alone. Therefore, our research does not support the use of rTMS as a standalone treatment for CLBP. Our study contributed to optimizing treatment strategies for individuals suffering from CLBP.

Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic pain and neurogenic claudication related to lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVES

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation technique for treating chronic pain, yet its effectiveness in chronic lower extremity pain due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has not been studied. This research aimed to investigate the impact of tDCS on pain, walking capacity, functional status, and quality of life in LSS patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study, 32 LSS patients received either real or sham tDCS over the motor cortex contralateral to the patient's painful lower extremity for 10 consecutive weekdays (10 sessions). Evaluations were conducted at baseline, post-session, and 1-3 months later. The pain was evaluated by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), walking duration and distance by Treadmill Walking Test, functional status by Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) and quality of life by Short Form-36 (SF-36).

RESULTS

In-group comparisons, active tDCS showed sustained analgesic effects for 3-month post-treatment, distinct from sham. After the final session, active group exhibited significantly better asymptomatic walking distance and duration. Active stimulation led to notably lower MOLBDQ scores after 1 month. Significant improvements in SF-36 subscales were seen after 3 months, especially in pain, physical functioning, and general health. Positive tDCS effects on pain, claudication, and some quality of life aspects were evident at 3 months, while functional status improvements were mainly limited to 1 month.

CONCLUSION

tDCS shows potential as a safe, non-invasive technique for alleviating chronic LSS-related pain, enhancing mobility, functionality, and quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03958526.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Orthopedic Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) appears to alleviate chronic pain via a brain-down mechanism. Although several review studies have examined the effects of tDCS on patients with chronic pain, no systematic review or meta-analysis has comprehensively analyzed the effects of tDCS on chronic orthopedic joint pain in one study. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tDCS for pain reduction in chronic orthopedic patients; (2) Methods: A comprehensive search of five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane) was performed. Only randomized controlled trials that compared tDCS with a control intervention were included. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified four categories of chronic orthopedic pain: knee (k = 8), lower back (k = 7), shoulder (k = 2), and orofacial pain (k = 1). Random effect models were utilized, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted in the presence of significant heterogeneity. Studies within each pain condition were further classified according to the number of treatment sessions: 1-5 sessions, 6-10 sessions, and >10 sessions.; (3) Results: Significant reductions in chronic orthopedic joint pain were observed following tDCS compared to controls for knee (g = 0.59, p = 0.005), lower back (g = 1.14, p = 0.005), and shoulder (g = 1.17, p = 0.020). Subgroup analyses showed pain reductions after 6-10 tDCS sessions for knee pain and after 1-5 and >10 sessions for lower back pain; (4) Conclusions: tDCS could be considered a potential stand-alone or supplemental therapy for chronic knee and lower back pain. The effectiveness of tDCS treatment varies depending on the number of treatment sessions. Our findings suggest the importance of implementing individualized treatment plans when considering tDCS for chronic pain conditions.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with Pilates-based exercises in the treatment of chronic low back pain in outpatient rehabilitation service in Brazil: double-blind randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain may be associated with pathoanatomical, neurophysiological, physical, psychological and social factors; thus, treatments to reduce symptoms are important to improve the quality of life of this population. We aimed to evaluate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with Pilates-based exercises compared with sham stimulation on pain, quality of life and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial with participants, outcome assessor and statistician blinded. We will include 36 individuals with a history of non-specific chronic low back pain for more than 12 weeks and minimum pain intensity of 3 points on the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Individuals will be randomised into two groups: (1) active tDCS combined with Pilates-based exercises and (2) sham tDCS combined with Pilates-based exercises. Three weekly sessions of the protocol will be provided for 4 weeks, and individuals will be submitted to three assessments: the first (T0) will be performed before the intervention protocol, the second (T1) immediately after the intervention protocol and the third (T2) will be a follow-up 1 month after the end of the intervention. We will assess pain, disability, central sensitisation, quality of life, pressure pain threshold, global impression of change, adverse events and medication use. The Numerical Pain Rating Scale and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire will be used at T1 to assess pain and disability, respectively, as primary outcome measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov website and ethically approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi (report number: 5.411.244) before data collection. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed medical journal and on institution websites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05467566).

Exploring the Frontiers of Neuroimaging: A Review of Recent Advances in Understanding Brain Functioning and Disorders

Neuroimaging has revolutionized our understanding of brain function and has become an essential tool for researchers studying neurological disorders. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) are two widely used neuroimaging techniques to review changes in brain activity. fMRI is a noninvasive technique that uses magnetic fields and radio waves to produce detailed brain images. An EEG is a noninvasive technique that records the brain's electrical activity through electrodes placed on the scalp. This review overviews recent developments in noninvasive functional neuroimaging methods, including fMRI and EEG. Recent advances in fMRI technology, its application to studying brain function, and the impact of neuroimaging techniques on neuroscience research are discussed. Advances in EEG technology and its applications to analyzing brain function and neural oscillations are also highlighted. In addition, advanced courses in neuroimaging, such as diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), are described, along with their role in studying brain connectivity, white matter tracts, and potential treatments for schizophrenia and chronic pain. Application. The review concludes by examining neuroimaging studies of neurodevelopmental and neurological disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and Parkinson's disease (PD). We also described the role of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in ASD, ADHD, AD, and PD. Neuroimaging techniques have significantly advanced our understanding of brain function and provided essential insights into neurological disorders. However, further research into noninvasive treatments such as EEG, MRI, and TES is necessary to continue to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for neurological disorders.

Diagnosis and Management of Neuropathic Pain in Spine Diseases

Neuropathic pain is generally defined as a non-physiological pain experience caused by damage to the nervous system. It can occur spontaneously, as a reaction to a given stimulus, or independently of its action, leading to unusual pain sensations usually referred to as firing, burning or throbbing. In the course of spine disorders, pain symptoms commonly occur. According to available epidemiological studies, a neuropathic component of pain is often present in patients with spinal diseases, with a frequency ranging from 36% to 55% of patients. Distinguishing between chronic nociceptive pain and neuropathic pain very often remains a challenge. Consequently, neuropathic pain is often underdiagnosed in patients with spinal diseases. In reference to current guidelines for the treatment of neuropathic pain, gabapentin, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants constitute first-line therapeutic agents. However, long-term pharmacologic treatment often leads to developing tolerance and resistance to used medications. Therefore, in recent years, a plethora of therapeutic methods for neuropathic pain have been developed and investigated to improve clinical outcomes. In this review, we briefly summarized current knowledge about the pathophysiology and diagnosis of neuropathic pain. Moreover, we described the most effective treatment approaches for neuropathic pain and discussed their relevance in the treatment of spinal pain.

Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with peripheral stimulation in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The combination of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) with peripheral stimulation may optimize their effects and bring positive results in treatment of people with chronic pain.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials was performed to investigate the combination of tDCS with peripheral stimulation in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was pain intensity. Six studies were included in this review (sample of 228 participants), which investigated the combination of tDCS and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, peripheral electrical stimulation, breathing-controlled electrical stimulation and intramuscular electrical stimulation. The conditions studied were knee osteoarthritis, spinal cord injury, chronic low back pain, and neurogenic pain of the arms. Pain intensity, measured by visual analog scale or numerical rating scale, was reduced in all included studies when at least one of the interventions was active, regardless they were combined or alone, with or without tDCS. However, meta-analysis showed superiority of tDCS used in combination with peripheral stimulation.

EXPERT OPINION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests positive effects of tDCS combined with peripheral stimulation in chronic pain conditions. However, the evidence of the primary outcome was classified as low quality due to the limited number of studies.

Time since onset might be of essence: A recommendation to assess the effects of combination of non-pharmacological neuromodulatory approaches at early stage since symptoms onset

In the past decade researchers began to assess the potential beneficial effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with a behavioral task as a treatment approach for various medical conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex combined with another treatment approach has been assessed as analgesic treatment in neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain conditions, and was found to exert only modest pain relief. Our group results show that combined tDCS and mirror therapy dramatically reduced acute phantom limb pain intensity with long-lasting effects, potentially preventing pain chronification. A review of the scientific literature indicates that our approach differs from that of others: We applied the intervention at the acute stage of the disease, whereas other studies applied the intervention in patients whose disease had already been established. We suggest that the timing of administration of the combined intervention is critical. Unlike in patients with chronic painful condition, in which the maladaptive plasticity associated with pain chronification and chronicity is well-consolidated, early treatment at the acute pain stage may be more successful in counterbalancing the not-yet consolidated maladaptive plasticity. We encourage the research community to test our hypothesis, both in the treatment of pain, and beyond.

Non-invasive brain neuromodulation techniques for chronic low back pain

Structural and functional changes of the brain occur in many chronic pain conditions, including chronic low back pain (CLBP), and these brain abnormalities can be reversed by effective treatment. Research on the clinical applications of non-invasive brain neuromodulation (NIBS) techniques for chronic pain is increasing. Unfortunately, little is known about the effectiveness of NIBS on CLBP, which limits its application in clinical pain management. Therefore, we summarized the effectiveness and limitations of NIBS techniques on CLBP management and described the effects and mechanisms of NIBS approaches on CLBP in this review. Overall, NIBS may be effective for the treatment of CLBP. And the analgesic mechanisms of NIBS for CLBP may involve the regulation of pain signal pathway, synaptic plasticity, neuroprotective effect, neuroinflammation modulation, and variations in cerebral blood flow and metabolism. Current NIBS studies for CLBP have limitations, such as small sample size, relative low quality of evidence, and lack of mechanistic studies. Further studies on the effect of NIBS are needed, especially randomized controlled trials with high quality and large sample size.

Transcranial direct current stimulation in the management of phantom limb pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Phantom limb pain (PLP) after amputation is a frequent entity that conditions the life of those who suffer it. Current treatment methods are not sufficiently effective for PLP management. We aim to analyze the clinical application of transcranial direct current (tDCS) in people with amputation suffering from PLP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The following databases were consulted in September 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Web of Science, PEDro, SCOPUS and SciELO. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of tDCS in people with amputation undergoing PLP were selected. Demographic data, type and cause of amputation, time since amputation, stimulation parameters, and outcomes were extracted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Six articles were included in this review (seven studies were considered because one study performed two individual protocols). All included studies evaluated PLP; six evaluated the phantom limb sensations (PLS) and two evaluated the psychiatric disorders. In all included studies the intensity and frequency of PLP was reduced, in three PLS were reduced, and in none study psychiatric symptoms were modified.

CONCLUSIONS

Anodic tDCS over the contralateral M1 to the affected limb, with an intensity of 1-2 mA, for 15-20 minutes seems to significantly reduce PLP in people with amputation. Single-session treatment could modify PLP intensity for hours, and multi-session treatment could modify PLP for months. Limited evidence suggests that PLS and psychiatric disorders should be treated with different PLP electrode placements. Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up times are needed to establish the priority of tDCS application in the PLP management.

High-definition transcranial infraslow pink noise stimulation for chronic low back pain: protocol for a pilot, safety and feasibility randomised placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common disabling health condition. Current treatments demonstrate modest effects, warranting newer therapies. Brain imaging demonstrates altered electrical activities in cortical areas responsible for pain modulation, emotional and sensory components of pain experience. Treatments targeting to change electrical activities of these key brain regions may produce clinical benefits. This pilot study aims to (1) evaluate feasibility, safety and acceptability of a novel neuromodulation technique, high-definition transcranial infraslow pink noise stimulation (HD-tIPNS), in people with CLBP, (2) explore the trend of effect of HD-tIPNS on pain and function, and (3) derive treatment estimates to support sample size calculation for a fully powered trial should trends of effectiveness be present.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A pilot, triple-blinded randomised two-arm placebo-controlled parallel trial. Participants (n=40) with CLBP will be randomised to either sham stimulation or HD-tIPNS (targeting somatosensory cortex and dorsal and pregenual anterior cingulate cortex). Primary outcomes include feasibility and safety measures, and clinical outcomes of pain (Brief Pain Inventory) and disability (Roland-Morris disability questionnaire). Secondary measures include clinical, psychological, quantitative sensory testing and electroencephalography collected at baseline, immediately postintervention, and at 1-week, 1-month and 3 months postintervention. All data will be analysed descriptively. A nested qualitative study will assess participants perceptions about acceptability of intervention and analysed thematically.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from Health and Disability Ethics Committee (Ref:20/NTB/67). Findings will be reported to regulatory and funding bodies, presented at conferences, and published in a scientific journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000505909p.

Combined effects of cerebellar tDCS and task-oriented circuit training in people with multiple sclerosis: A pilot randomized control trial

Background: Balance and mobility impairments are frequent in people with multiple sclerosis, partly due to cerebellar dysfunctions. Task-oriented behavioural approaches were previously shown to promote physical function. The possibility exists that cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) applied during training, known to increase the excitability of the brain, can boost rehabilitation effects through modulation of cerebellum-brain inhibition. Objective: To test the efficacy of cerebellar ctDCS stimulation combined with motor training on mobility and balance in people with multiple sclerosis. Methods: 16 subjects were randomly assigned to receive real- or sham-ctDCS and task-oriented training daily over two weeks in a double-blind, randomised clinical pilot trial. Functional mobility, balance, walking performance and quality of life were tested before and after treatment and at two-week follow-up. Effects of cerebellar stimulation on psychological and executive functions were also recorded. Results: Walking performance, balance and quality of life improved for both groups at post-treatment assessment which was maintained at 2-weeks follow up. A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant time effect for balance and walking performance. A significant interaction effect of time–treatment (F = 3.12, df = 2,26; p = 0.03) was found for motor aspects of quality of life assessment in patients who received real-ctDCS. Conclusions: Task-oriented training improves balance and mobility in people with multiple sclerosis, but ctDCS does not boost motor training effects.

Influencing discussions and use of neuroadvancements as professionals and citizens: Perspectives of Canadian speech-language pathologists and audiologists

BACKGROUND: Early involvement of stakeholders in neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses of neuroscientific and neurotechnological advancements is seen as essential to curtail negative consequences. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists (AUs) make use of neuroadvancements including cochlear implants, brain-computer interfaces, and deep-brain stimulation. Although they have a stake in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, they are rarely mentioned in having a role, whether as professionals or as citizens. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to explore the role of SLPs and AUs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and examine the utility of lifelong learning mechanisms to learn about the implications of neuroadvancements to contribute in a meaningful way to these discussions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews conducted with 7 SLPs and 3 AUs were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants stated that their roles expected from them as professionals and as citizens indicate the importance to be knowledgeable on ethical, legal, and social implications of neuroadvancements and that lifelong learning is not used to learn about these implications. CONCLUSION: More must be done to facilitate the participation of SLPs and AUs in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, which would enrich the neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses benefitting patients, professionals, and the public.

tDCS randomized controlled trials in no-structural diseases: a quantitative review

The increasing number and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) employing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) denote the rising awareness of neuroscientific community about its electroceutical potential and opening to include these treatments in the framework of medical therapies under the indications of the international authorities. The purpose of this quantitative review is to estimate the recommendation strength applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria and PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) model values for effective tDCS treatments on no-structural diseases, and to provide an estimate of Sham effect for future RCTs. Applying GRADE evaluation pathway, we searched in literature the tDCS-based RCTs in psychophysical diseases displaying a major involvement of brain electrical activity imbalances. Three independent authors agreed on Class 1 RCTs (18 studies) and meta-analyses were carried out using a random-effects model for pathologies sub-selected based on PICO and systemic involvement criteria. The meta-analysis integrated with extensive evidence of negligible side effects and low-cost, easy-to-use procedures, indicated that tDCS treatments for depression and fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis ranked between moderately and highly recommendable. For these interventions we reported the PICO variables, with left vs. right dorsolateral prefrontal target for 30 min/10 days against depression and bilateral somatosensory vs occipital target for 15 min/5 days against MS fatigue. An across-diseases meta-analysis devoted to the Sham effect provided references for power analysis in future tDCS RCTs on these clinical conditions. High-quality indications support tDCS as a promising tool to build electroceutical treatments against diseases involving neurodynamics alterations.

To Combine or Not to Combine Physical Therapy With tDCS for Stroke With Shoulder Pain? Analysis From a Combination Randomized Clinical Trial for Rehabilitation of Painful Shoulder in Stroke

Purpose: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an intervention that seems to be an ideal tool to enhance the effects of rehabilitation therapies given it facilitates generation of plasticity in the stimulated brain area. In stroke this strategy has been highly utilized; however, the results have been mixed. In this trial we have evaluated the analgesic and functional effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) combined with physiotherapy in stroke survivors with shoulder pain.

Methods: Twenty-six stroke surviving adults with shoulder pain received 10 sessions of passive mobilization and performed upper limb exercises using a cycle ergometer, combined with active or sham tDCS. The intensity of pain in the hemiplegic shoulder was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS); secondary outcomes were the level of motor impairment, handgrip strength, range of motion, motor function of the upper limbs, and quality of life (QOL) assessed before and after 10 sessions and 1 month after the end of the treatment.

Results: A clinically important pain reduction (3 points) was found in both groups and was maintained at follow-up; there was no significant difference between groups (p = 0.3). Similarly, the shoulder range of motion improved, motor function and quality of life improved showed no significant differences between groups. One result that needs to be underscored is that both groups had a significant effect size toward improvement in all of these outcomes.

Conclusions: We discuss in this study that tDCS is not a useful combination strategy when the physical therapy has a large effect by itself and we also review other negative trials of combined therapy under this framework of ceiling effect of the main physical therapy.

Trial registry: Trial registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, RBR-8F5MNY (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-8f5mny/). Registered on June 2, 2017.

Beginning of the recruitment of the volunteers: august, 2017.

The Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation to Reduce Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to evaluate noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) efficacy to alleviate pain and improve disability in low back pain (LBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed by a librarian in MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases (last search: January 14, 2021). Data were pooled by the number of sessions and follow-up periods. Independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias. Pain reduction and disability were used as outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 8 in the meta-analysis. A single session of NIBS reduced pain compared with sham (standardized mean difference: -0.47; P<0.001; very low-quality evidence). Repeated sessions of NIBS did not impact pain at short-term (mean difference [MD]: -0.31; P=0.23) or midterm (MD: -0.56; P=0.33; moderate quality evidence). Combining NIBS with cointerventions did not influence pain (MD: -0.31; P=0.30; moderate quality evidence). NIBS did not have a statistically significant impact on disability.

DISCUSSION

There is very low-quality evidence suggesting that a single NIBS session reduces LBP intensity. In contrast, there is moderate quality evidence that repeated NIBS sessions or combination with cointervention did not improve pain or disability. Thus, current results do not support NIBS use to treat chronic LBP. Considering that tDCS was tested in 8 of 12 studies with little success, studies focusing on different NIBS techniques or innovative parameters are required to determine their potential to improve pain and disability in chronic LBP.

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.

OBJECTIVE

We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson's disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.

METHODS

Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.

RESULTS

Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson's disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).

CONCLUSION

All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation alone and in combination with motor control exercise for the treatment of individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (ExTraStim trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

While multiple pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions treating chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) are available, they have been shown to produce at best modest effects. Interventions such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, have exhibited promising results to alleviate chronic pain. However, evidence on the effectiveness of rTMS for CLBP is scarce due to limited rigorous clinical trials. Combining rTMS with motor control exercises (MCE) may help to address both central and nociceptive factors contributing to the persistence of LBP. The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial is to compare the effectiveness of a combination of rTMS and MCE to repeated rTMS sessions alone, sham rTMS and a combination of sham rTMS and MCE on pain intensity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

One hundred and forty participants (35/group) with CLBP will be randomised into four groups (active rTMS+MCE, sham rTMS+MCE, active rTMS and sham rTMS) to receive 10 sessions of their allocated intervention. The primary outcome will be the pain intensity, assessed at baseline, 4, 8, 12 and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include disability, fear of movement, quality of life and patient global rating of change.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Comité d'éthique de la recherche sectoriel en réadaptation et intégration sociale, CIUSS de la Capitale Nationale in June 2019 (#2020-1844 - CER CIUSSS-CN). The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04555278.

Hyperalgesia and Central Sensitization in Subjects With Chronic Orofacial Pain: Analysis of Pain Thresholds and EEG Biomarkers

Introduction: The presence of a temporomandibular disorder is one of the most frequent causes of orofacial pain (OFP). When pain continues beyond tissue healing time, it becomes chronic and may be caused, among other factors, by the sensitization of higher-order neurons. The aim of this study is to describe psychological characteristics of patients with chronic OFP, their peripheral pain threshold, and electroencephalography (EEG) recording, looking for possible signs of central sensitization (CS). Materials and methods: Twenty-four subjects with chronic OFP caused by temporomandibular disorder were evaluated using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders Axis I and Axis II. Pain intensity, catastrophizing, and presence of CS were assessed through self-reported questionnaires. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was recorded in facial and peripheral sites; EEG activity was recorded during open and closed eyes resting state and also during the pain threshold assessment. Pain thresholds and EEG recordings were compared with a cohort of pain-free age- and sex-matched healthy subjects. Results: Patients with chronic OFP showed a significant reduction in their pain threshold compared to healthy subjects in all sites assessed. Greater reduction in pain threshold was recorded in patients with more severe psychological symptoms. Decreased alpha and increased gamma activity was recorded in central and frontal regions of all subjects, although no significant differences were observed between groups. Discussion: A general reduction in PPT was recorded in people who suffer from chronic OFP. This result may be explained by sensitization of the central nervous system due to chronic pain conditions. Abnormal EEG activity was recorded during painful stimulation compared to the relaxed condition in both chronic OFP subjects and healthy controls.

Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Enhances Quadriceps Motor Evoked Potential in Healthy Participants: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study

Transcutaneous electrical spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) is a non-invasive technique for neuromodulation and has therapeutic potential for motor rehabilitation following spinal cord injury. The main aim of the present study is to quantify the effect of a single session of tSCS on lower limb motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in healthy participants. A double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized, crossover, clinical trial was carried out in 15 participants. Two 10-min sessions of tSCS (active-tSCS and sham-tSCS) were applied at the T11-T12 vertebral level. Quadriceps (Q) and tibialis anterior (TA) muscle MEPs were recorded at baseline, during and after tSCS. Q and TA isometric maximal voluntary contraction was also recorded. A significant increase of the Q-MEP amplitude was observed during active-tSCS (1.96 ± 0.3 mV) when compared from baseline (1.40 ± 0.2 mV; p = 0.01) and when compared to sham-tSCS at the same time-point (1.13 ± 0.3 mV; p = 0.03). No significant modulation was identified for TA-MEP amplitude or for Q and TA isometric maximal voluntary isometric strength. In conclusion, tSCS applied over the T11-T12 vertebral level increased Q-MEP but not TA-MEP compared to sham stimulation. The specific neuromodulatory effect of tSCS on Q-MEP may reflect optimal excitation of this motor response at the interneuronal or motoneuronal level.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Accelerates The Onset of Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia: A Randomized Controlled Study

Exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) describes acute reductions in pain that occur following exercise. Current evidence suggests that the magnitude of EIH is small-to-moderate at best, warranting exploration of novel avenues to bolster these effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to relieve pain and represents a promising intervention that may enhance EIH. This study aimed to determine whether anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex (M1) can augment EIH in healthy individuals experiencing experimentally-induced musculoskeletal pain. Twenty-four healthy subjects attended 2 experimental sessions ("Day 0" and "Day 2"). On Day 0, subjects were injected with nerve growth factor into their right extensor carpi radialis brevis to induce persistent elbow pain. On Day 2, each subject received active or sham tDCS over M1 followed by an isometric grip exercise. Pain intensity, muscle soreness, sensitivity (pressure pain thresholds), and conditioned pain modulation were assessed prior to the nerve growth factor injection, on Day 2 before tDCS, immediately post-exercise, and 15 minutes post-exercise. Active tDCS expedited the onset of EIH, inducing immediate reductions in pain intensity that were not present until 15 minutes post-exercise in the sham group. However, active tDCS did not reduce muscle soreness or sensitivity when compared to sham tDCS. PERSPECTIVE: These findings suggest that active tDCS accelerates the onset of EIH in healthy individuals experiencing experimentally-induced pain. This may represent a promising means of enhancing adherence to exercise protocols. However, larger randomised controlled trials in persistent pain populations are required to confirm the clinical impact of these findings.

Methods and strategies of tDCS for the treatment of pain: current status and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that has been widely studied for the treatment of chronic pain. It is considered a promising and safe alternative pain therapy. Different targets have been tested, each having their own particular mechanisms for modulating pain perception.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the current state of the art of tDCS to manage pain and future strategies to optimize tDCS' effects. Current strategies include primary motor cortex tDCS, prefrontal tDCS and tDCS combined with behavioral interventions while future strategies, on the other hand, include high-intensity tDCS, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, cerebellar tDCS, home-based tDCS, and tDCS with extended number of sessions.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

It has been shown that the stimulation of the prefrontal and primary motor cortex is efficient for pain reduction while a few other new strategies, such as high-intensity tDCS and network-based tDCS, are believed to induce strong neuroplastic effects, although the underlying neural mechanisms still need to be fully uncovered. Hence, conventional tDCS approaches demonstrated promising effects to manage pain and new strategies are under development to enhance tDCS effects and make this approach more easily available by using, for instance, home-based devices.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Therapeutic Exercise in Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Although some studies have shown the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise in chronic nonspecific low back pain, the effect sizes are generally small to moderate and recurrence rates are high. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used to modulate pain-processing systems and motor outputs and has the potential to optimize the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise. However, evidence for this combination is still lacking. The purpose of this protocol for a randomized clinical trial is to investigate whether the combination of tDCS and therapeutic exercise is more effective in relieving pain than therapeutic exercise alone.

METHODS

This 2-arm, randomized controlled clinical trial will take place at the Federal University of Piauí, Brazil. Sixty patients will be randomized into 2 groups to receive tDCS (real/sham) + exercise therapies for 12 sessions over a period of 4 weeks. Pain intensity, sensory and affective aspects of pain, physical functioning, kinesiophobia, and global perceived effect will be recorded before treatment and at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after randomization. Data will be collected by an examiner unaware of (blind to) the treatment allocation.

IMPACT

This trial can potentially provide important information and assist in clinical decision-making on the combined use of tDCS to optimize the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

The Analgesic Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) combined with Physical Therapy on Common Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The analgesic effects of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) combined with physical therapy remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review available evidence comparing tDCS with any physical therapy modality (PTM) to PTM alone or PTM with sham tDCS on pain relief on common musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, namely knee osteoarthritis (KOA), chronic low back pain (CLBP), myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) and fibromyalgia.

METHODS

EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from inception to April 2019 for randomized controlled trials. Reviewers independently assessed the studies quality and extracted data according to the PRISMA protocol. The GRADE approach was used to asses quality of evidence and a "Summary of Findings" table was created. The analyses used random-effects model. The primary outcome was pain reduction after treatment.

RESULTS

Eight articles were included. Only one study had low risk of bias. Quality of evidence was considered low or very low. Significant reduction in pain scores were found for fibromyalgia and KOA (Standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.94 [95% CI: -3.37 to -0.49; I ²=76.4%] and SMD = -2.35 [95% CI: -3.63 to -1.06; I ²=69.7%] respectively). Subgroup analysis considering the type of PTM despite MSK condition revealed significant reduction in pain scores for exercise, SMD = -1.20 [95% CI: -1.683 to -0.717; I ²=10.8%].

CONCLUSIONS

Large heterogeneity and low quality of evidence and limited number of studies were found. Results suggest a potential analgesic effect of tDCS in combination with a PTM for fibromyalgia and KOA. Subgroup analysis suggests a stronger effect of tDCS when combined with an exercise based PTM.

Noninvasive brain stimulation combined with exercise in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The use of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with exercise could produce synergistic effects on chronic pain conditions. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NIBS combined with exercise to treat chronic pain as well as to describe the parameters used to date in this combination.Methods: The search was carried out in Medline, Central, Scopus, Embase, and Pedro until November 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies reporting the use of noninvasive brain stimulation and exercise on patients with chronic pain were selected and revised.Results: The authors included eight studies (RCTs), reporting eight comparisons (219 participants). Authors found a significant and homogeneous pain decrease (ES: -0.62, 95% CI:-0.89 to -0.34; I2 = 0.0%) in favor of the combined intervention compared to sham NIBS + exercise, predominantly by excitatory (anodal tDCS/rTMS) motor cortex stimulation. Regarding NIBS techniques, the pooled effect sizes were significant for both tDCS (ES: -0.59, 95% CI: -0.89 to -0.29, I2 = 0.0%) and rTMS (ES: -0.76, 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.11, I2 = 0.0%).Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests a significant moderate to large effects of the NIBS and exercise combination in chronic pain. The authors discuss the potential theoretical framework for this synergistic effect.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for nonspecific low back pain: double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial

Introduction: Low back pain is recognized as a major cause of morbidity worldwide. Between 70 and 80% of adults experience at least one occasion of low back pain with duration of 3 months or longer in their lifetime. Aside from the classic treatment methods, there are other new techniques yet to be clinically investigated. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been reported to alleviate pain by affecting the central nervous system. To date only a small number of studies have been published on the effects of tDCS on chronic low back pain. Some of these were pilot studies and others were low-powered in terms of their inference. Therefore the clinical application of tDCS requires further careful evaluation. Objective: To assess the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation for treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Materials and methods: We carried out a double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial in a University Hospital. In total 70 people (15 women) with low back pain were randomized to either active or sham stimulation. The primary outcome was intensity of low back pain on the Visual Analog Scale. We also used the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire to evaluate the effects of back pain on daily activities. For the active stimulation group we administered 2 mA tDCS, 20 minutes for each session, once daily, 5 days per week for 2 weeks, totaling 10 sessions. For the sham stimulation group a similar program was followed with no stimulation. Both groups used analgesic medication. Results: Within-group analysis showed that an initial decrease in pain intensity was significant in both groups (both p < 0.001). However, pain reduction became stable only in the active treatment group. There was a significant difference in the pattern of change in mean pain scores in favor of tDCS (p < 0.001). Active treatment also significantly reduced disability scores (all p values < 0.001), whereas participants in the sham treatment group did not experience functional recovery. Mixed ANOVA indicated that the pattern of change in mean scores of disability differed between the two groups throughout the study course, in favor of active stimulation (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Transcranial direct current stimulation is an effective and safe initial treatment for chronic nonspecific low back pain, and the benefits remain for at least several months.

Latin American and Caribbean consensus on noninvasive central nervous system neuromodulation for chronic pain management (LAC2-NIN-CP)

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

Chronic pain (CP) is highly prevalent and generally undertreated health condition. Noninvasive brain stimulation may contribute to decrease pain intensity and influence other aspects related to CP.

Objective:

To provide consensus-based recommendations for the use of noninvasive brain stimulation in clinical practice.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature searching for randomized clinical trials followed by consensus panel. Recommendations also involved a cost-estimation study.

Results:

The systematic review wielded 24 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and 22 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies. The following recommendations were provided: (1) Level A for anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) in fibromyalgia, and level B for peripheral neuropathic pain, abdominal pain, and migraine; bifrontal (F3/F4) tDCS and M1 high-definition (HD)-tDCS for fibromyalgia; Oz/Cz tDCS for migraine and for secondary benefits such as improvement in quality of life, decrease in anxiety, and increase in pressure pain threshold; (2) level A recommendation for high-frequency (HF) rTMS over M1 for fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, and level B for myofascial or musculoskeletal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and migraine; (3) level A recommendation against the use of anodal M1 tDCS for low back pain; and (4) level B recommendation against the use of HF rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the control of pain.

Conclusion:

Transcranial DCS and rTMS are recommended techniques to be used in the control of CP conditions, with low to moderate analgesic effects, and no severe adverse events. These recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus made by experts in the field. Readers should use it as part of the resources available to decision-making.