Cochrane · systematic review · CD008208
Non‐invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain
O'Connell, NE, Marston, L, Spencer, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
9
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 11.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 33.3%Low 5 · 55.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 3 versionsRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) compared with sham for chronic pain
Population: adults with chronic pain
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) vs sham | no estimate extracted | 27 studies · 655 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Disability (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using self‐reported disability/pain interference scales Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) vs sham | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 119 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Quality of life (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) vs sham | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) compared with sham for chronic pain
Population: adults with chronic pain
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) vs sham | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 270 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Disability (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using self‐reported disability/pain interference scales Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) vs sham | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) vs sham | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) compared with sham for chronic pain
Population: adults with chronic pain
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs sham | no estimate extracted | 27 studies · 747 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
Disability (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using self‐reported disability/pain interference scales Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs sham | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 212 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life (0 to < 1 week postintervention) measured using different scales across studies Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs sham | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 82 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |