Revisiting the effects of rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 39089648
- DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2024.07.011
Revisiting the effects of rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Our previous study synthesized the analgesic effects of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) trials up to 2019. There has been a significant increase in pain trials in the past few years, along with methodological variabilities such as sample size, stimulation intensity, and rTMS paradigms.
Objectives/methods: This study therefore updated the effects of DLPFC-rTMS on chronic pain and quantified the impact of methodological differences across studies.
Results: A total of 36 studies were included. Among them, 26 studies were clinical trials (update = 9, 307/711 patients), and 10 (update = 1, 34/249 participants) were provoked pain studies. The updated meta-analysis does not support an effect on neuropathic pain after including the additional trials (pshort-term = 0.20, pmid-term = 0.50). However, there is medium-to-large analgesic effect in migraine trials extending up to six weeks follow-up (SMDmid-term = -0.80, SMDlong-term = -0.51), that was not previously reported. Methodological differences wthine the studies were considered. DLPFC-rTMS also induces potential improvement in the emotional aspects of pain (SMDshort-term = -0.28).
Conclusions: The updated systematic meta-analysis continues to support analgesic effects for chronic pain overall. However, the updated results no longer support DLPFC-rTMS for pain relief in neuropathic pain, and do supports DLPFC-rTMS in the management of migraine. There is also evidence for DLPFC-rTMS to improve emotional aspects of pain.
Keywords: Analgesia; DLPFC; Meta-analysis; rTMS.
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property. We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript that has involved either experimental animals or human patients has been conducted with the ethical approval of all relevant bodies and that such approvals are acknowledged within the manuscript. We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office). He is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs. We confirm that we have provided a current, correct email address which is accessible by the Corresponding Author and which has been configured to accept email from xwcheswu@gmail.com.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
