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.
Recent evidence favors the view of catatonia as an autonomous syndrome, frequently associated with mood disorders, but also observed in neurological, neurodevelopmental, physical and toxic conditions. From our systematic literature review, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) results effective in all forms of catatonia, even after pharmacotherapy with benzodiazepines has failed. Response rate ranges from 80% to 100% and results superior to those of any other therapy in psychiatry. ECT should be considered first-line treatment in patients with malignant catatonia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, delirious mania or severe catatonic excitement, and in general in all catatonic patients that are refractory or partially responsive to benzodiazepines. Early intervention with ECT is encouraged to avoid undue deterioration of the patient's medical condition. Little is known about the long-term treatment outcomes following administration of ECT for catatonia. The presence of a concomitant chronic neurologic disease or extrapyramidal deficit seems to be related to ECT non-response. On the contrary, the presence of acute, severe and psychotic mood disorder is associated with good response. Severe psychotic features in responders may be related with a prominent GABAergic mediated deficit in orbitofrontal cortex, whereas non-responders may be characterized by a prevalent dopaminergic mediated extrapyramidal deficit. These observations are consistent with the hypothesis that ECT is more effective in "top-down" variant of catatonia, in which the psychomotor syndrome may be sustained by a dysregulation of the orbitofrontal cortex, than in "bottom-up" variant, in which an extrapyramidal dysregulation may be prevalent. Future research should focus on ECT response in different subtype of catatonia and on efficacy of maintenance ECT in long-term prevention of recurrent catatonia. Further research on mechanism of action of ECT in catatonia may also contribute to the development of other brain stimulation techniques.
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system affecting an estimated 1.3 million people worldwide. It is characterised by a variety of disabling symptoms of which excessive fatigue is the most frequent. Fatigue is often reported as the most invalidating symptom in people with MS. Various mechanisms directly and indirectly related to the disease and physical inactivity have been proposed to contribute to the degree of fatigue. Exercise therapy can induce physiological and psychological changes that may counter these mechanisms and reduce fatigue in MS.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of exercise therapy compared to a no-exercise control condition or another intervention on fatigue, measured with self-reported questionnaires, of people with MS.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Trials Specialised Register, which, among other sources, contains trials from: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (from 1974 to October 2014), CINAHL (from 1981 to October 2014), LILACS (from 1982 to October 2014), PEDro (from 1999 to October 2014), and Clinical trials registries (October 2014). Two review authors independently screened the reference lists of identified trials and related reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy or other interventions for adults with MS that included subjective fatigue as an outcome. In these trials, fatigue should have been measured using questionnaires that primarily assessed fatigue or sub-scales of questionnaires that measured fatigue or sub-scales of questionnaires not primarily designed for the assessment of fatigue but explicitly used as such.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the articles, extracted data, and determined methodological quality of the included trials. Methodological quality was determined by means of the Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool and the PEDro scale. The combined body of evidence was summarised using the GRADE approach. The results were aggregated using meta-analysis for those trials that provided sufficient data to do so.
MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five trials, studying 69 exercise interventions, were eligible for this review, including 2250 people with MS. The prescribed exercise interventions were categorised as endurance training (23 interventions), muscle power training (nine interventions), task-oriented training (five interventions), mixed training (15 interventions), or 'other' (e.g. yoga; 17 interventions). Thirty-six included trials (1603 participants) provided sufficient data on the outcome of fatigue for meta-analysis. In general, exercise interventions were studied in mostly participants with the relapsing-remitting MS phenotype, and with an Expanded Disability Status Scale less than 6.0. Based on 26 trials that used a non-exercise control, we found a significant effect on fatigue in favour of exercise therapy (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.73 to -0.33; P value < 0.01). However, there was significant heterogeneity between trials (I(2) > 58%). The mean methodological quality, as well as the combined body of evidence, was moderate. When considering the different types of exercise therapy, we found a significant effect on fatigue in favour of exercise therapy compared to no exercise for endurance training (SMDfixed effect -0.43, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.17; P value < 0.01), mixed training (SMDrandom effect -0.73, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.23; P value < 0.01), and 'other' training (SMDfixed effect -0.54, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.29; P value < 0.01). Across all studies, one fall was reported. Given the number of MS relapses reported for the exercise condition (N = 25) and non-exercise control condition (N = 26), exercise does not seem to be associated with a significant risk of a MS relapse. However, in general, MS relapses were defined and reported poorly.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy can be prescribed in people with MS without harm. Exercise therapy, and particularly endurance, mixed, or 'other' training, may reduce self reported fatigue. However, there are still some important methodological issues to overcome. Unfortunately, most trials did not explicitly include people who experienced fatigue, did not target the therapy on fatigue specifically, and did not use a validated measure of fatigue as the primary measurement of outcome.
Spasticity is commonly experienced by people with multiple sclerosis (MS), and it contributes to overall disability in this population. A wide range of non pharmacological interventions are used in isolation or with pharmacological agents to treat spasticity in MS. Evidence for their effectiveness is yet to be determined. To assess the effectiveness of various non pharmacological interventions for the treatment of spasticity in adults with MS. A literature search was performed using the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group on using the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register which among other sources, contains CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDRO in June 2012. Manual searching in the relevant journals and screening of the reference lists of identified studies and reviews were carried out. Abstracts published in proceedings of conferences were also scrutinised. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported non pharmacological intervention/s for treatment of spasticity in adults with MS and compared them with some form of control intervention (such as sham/placebo interventions or lower level or different types of intervention, minimal intervention, waiting list controls or no treatment; interventions given in different settings), were included. Three review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool for best-evidence synthesis. A meta-analysis was not possible due to methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity of included studies. Nine RCTs (N = 341 participants, 301 included in analyses) investigated various types and intensities of non pharmacological interventions for treating spasticity in adults with MS. These interventions included: physical activity programmes (such as physiotherapy, structured exercise programme, sports climbing); transcranial magnetic stimulation (Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation (iTBS), Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS)); electromagnetic therapy (pulsed electromagnetic therapy; magnetic pulsing device), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS); and Whole Body Vibration (WBV). All studies scored 'low' on the methodological quality assessment implying high risk of bias. There is 'low level' evidence for physical activity programmes used in isolation or in combination with other interventions (pharmacological or non pharmacological), and for repetitive magnetic stimulation (iTBS/rTMS) with or without adjuvant exercise therapy in improving spasticity in adults with MS. No evidence of benefit exists to support the use of TENS, sports climbing and vibration therapy for treating spasticity in this population. There is 'low level' evidence for non pharmacological interventions such as physical activities given in conjunction with other interventions, and for magnetic stimulation and electromagnetic therapies for beneficial effects on spasticity outcomes in people with MS. A wide range of non pharmacological interventions are used for the treatment of spasticity in MS, but more robust trials are needed to build evidence about these interventions.[CINAHL Note: The Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews contain interactive software that allows various calculations in the MetaView.]
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.
