Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Jun;157(6):1224-1231.
doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000510.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct-current stimulation in neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy: a randomized sham-controlled comparative study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct-current stimulation in neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy: a randomized sham-controlled comparative study

Nadine Attal et al. Pain. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

No study has directly compared the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in neuropathic pain (NP). In this 2-centre randomised double-blind sham-controlled study, we compared the efficacy of 10-Hz rTMS and anodal 2-mA tDCS of the motor cortex and sham stimulation contralateral to the painful area (3 daily sessions) in patients with NP due to lumbosacral radiculopathy. Average pain intensity (primary outcome) was evaluated after each session and 5 days later. Secondary outcomes included neuropathic symptoms and thermal pain thresholds for the upper limbs. We used an innovative design that minimised bias by randomly assigning patients to 1 of 2 groups: active rTMS and tDCS or sham rTMS and tDCS. For each treatment group (active or sham), the order of the sessions was again randomised according to a crossover design. In total, 51 patients were screened and 35 (51% women) were randomized. Active rTMS was superior to tDCS and sham in pain intensity (F = 2.89 and P = 0.023). Transcranial direct-current stimulation was not superior to sham, but its analgesic effects were correlated to that of rTMS (P = 0.046), suggesting common mechanisms of action. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation lowered cold pain thresholds (P = 0.04) and its effect on cold pain was correlated with its analgesic efficacy (P = 0.006). However, rTMS had no impact on individual neuropathic symptoms. Thus, rTMS is more effective than tDCS and sham in patients with NP due to lumbosacral radiculopathy and may modulate the sensory and affective dimensions of pain.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. André-Obadia N, Magnin M, Garcia-Larrea L. On the importance of placebo timing in rTMS studies for pain relief. PAIN 2011;152:1233–7.
    1. André-Obadia N, Mertens P, Gueguen A, Peyron R, Garcia-Larrea L. Pain relief by rTMS: differential effect of current flow but no specific action on pain subtypes. Neurology 2008;9:833–40.
    1. Andre-Obadia N, Peyron R, Mertens P, Mauguiere F, Laurent B, Garcia-Larrea L. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for pain control. Double-blind study of different frequencies against placebo, and correlation with motor cortex stimulation efficacy. Clin Neurophysiol 2006;117:1536–44.
    1. Attal N, Lanteri-Minet M, Laurent B, Fermanian J, Bouhassira D. The specific disease burden of neuropathic pain: results of a French nationwide survey. PAIN 2011;152:2836–43.
    1. Attal N, Perrot S, Fermanian J, Bouhassira D. The neuropathic components of chronic low back pain: a prospective multicenter study using the DN4 Questionnaire. J Pain 2011;12:1080–7.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources