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.
Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) is a non-invasive method of applying low-intensity electrical current to the head. It is related to but distinct from other forms of transcranial electrical stimulation including electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation. The different versions of transcranial electrical stimulation vary in the placement of electrodes, the intensity of the current, and the waveform of the current. According to Guleyupoglu and colleagues, CES evolved from the concept of “electrosleep,” first investigated at the beginning of the 20th century. Most of the early research and applications occurred in Russia. Beginning in the 1960s, the concept of electrosleep became more popular in the USA. Because of the belief that the treatment did not actually induce sleep, but rather the sleep was a side effect of the relaxing effect of the current stimulation, the name was changed from “electrosleep” to “cranial electrical stimulation.” Other proposed names, which have not persisted, included “transcerebral electrotherapy” and “NeuroElectric Therapy.” The latter is noteworthy because it gave its name to an early CES device, the Neurotone 101, which was the first device approved by the FDA. All subsequent CES devices have been cleared for marketing by FDA based on the concept of claiming equivalency to the Neurotone 101. The status of cranial electrical stimulation devices and FDA regulation remains a matter of some controversy.
OBJECTIVE: To update a systematic review of published research on pharmacotherapy for pain post-spinal cord injury (SCI).
DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles from 2009 to September 2015 examining treatment of pain post-SCI.
STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included for analysis if they met the following 4 a priori criteria: (1) written in the English language; (2) ≥50% of subjects had an SCI, unless results were stratified by population type; (3) participants included ≥3 subjects with an SCI; and (4) any intervention involving pharmacologic treatment for the improvement of pain.
DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodologic quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scoring system. All research designs were given a level of evidence according to a modified Sackett Scale.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven new studies met our inclusion criteria. The new studies fell into the following categories: analgesics (n=1), anticonvulsants (n=2), antidepressants (n=2), antispastics (n=1), and cannabinoids (n=1). There was evidence for 5 new pharmacotherapies among the SCI population; these included the following: oxycodone, duloxetine, venlafaxine, phenol block, and dronabinol. Levels of evidence for all therapy modalities were updated based on the new evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Anticonvulsants remain the most studied and supported pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain post-SCI. Antidepressants showed reduction in pain only among those with comorbid depression. Botulinum toxin and phenol blocks were supported for the reduction of mixed pain post-SCI.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on reducing neuropathic pain intensity in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).
METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched for all relevant articles published from 1980 to November 2014. Trials were included if (i) tDCS intervention group and a placebo control group were present; (ii) at least 50% of participants in the study had an SCI and there were at least three participants; (iii) participants were aged 18 years or older; and (iv) persistent pain for at least 3 months. Studies were excluded if: (i) the tDCS intervention group was compared with an active treatment group; (ii) there was insufficient reporting detail to enable pooling of data; and (iii) it was a nonclinical trial (that is, reviews, epidemiology, basic sciences). A standardized mean difference (SMD)±s.e. and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each outcome of interest and the results were pooled using a fixed or random effects model, as appropriate. Effect sizes were interpreted as: small >0.2, moderate >0.5, large >0.8.
RESULTS: Five studies met inclusion criteria of which four were randomized controlled trials and one was a prospective controlled trial. The pooled analysis found a significant effect of tDCS on reducing neuropathic pain after SCI post treatment (SMD=0.510±0.202; 95% CI, 0.114-0.906; P<0.012); however, this effect was not maintained at follow-up (SMD=0.353±0.272; 95% CI, -0.179 to 0.886; P<0.194). A reduction of 1.33 units on a 10-item scale was observed post treatment. No significant adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION: Meta-analytic results indicate a moderate effect of tDCS in reducing neuropathic pain among individuals with SCI; however, the effect was not maintained at follow-up. A mean pooled decrease of 1.33 units on a 10-item scale was found post treatment. Several factors were implicated in the effectiveness of tDCS in reducing pain. Due to the limited number of studies and lack of follow-up, more evidence is required before treatment recommendations can be made.
BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain is one of the most common and disabling symptoms in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Over two-thirds of subjects with SCI suffer from chronic pain influencing quality of life, rehabilitation, and recovery. Given the refractoriness of chronic pain to most pharmacological treatments, the majority of individuals with SCI report worsening of this condition over time. Moreover, only 4-6% of patients in this cohort report improvement. Novel treatments targeting mechanisms associated with pain-maladaptive plasticity, such as electromagnetic neural stimulation, may be desirable to improve outcomes. To date, few, small clinical trials have assessed the effects of invasive and noninvasive nervous system stimulation on pain after SCI.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review initial efficacy, safety and potential predictors of response by assessing the effects of neural stimulation techniques to treat SCI pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was performed using the PubMed database including studies using the following targeted stimulation strategies: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), High Definition tDCS (HD-tDCS), repetitive Transcranial Magnetical Stimulation (rTMS), Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation (CES), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) and Motor Cortex Stimulation (MCS), published prior to June of 2012. We included studies from 1998 to 2012.
RESULTS: Eight clinical trials and one naturalistic observational study (nine studies in total) met the inclusion criteria. Among the clinical trials, three studies assessed the effects of tDCS, two of CES, two of rTMS and one of TENS. The naturalistic study investigated the analgesic effects of SCS. No clinical trials for epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) or HD-tDCS were found. Parameters of stimulation and also clinical characteristics varied significantly across studies. Three out of eight studies showed larger effects sizes (0.73, 0.88 and 1.86 respectively) for pain reduction. Classical neuropathic pain symptoms such as dysesthesia (defined as an unpleasant burning sensation in response to touch), allodynia (pain due to a non-painful stimulus), pain in paroxysms, location of SCI in thoracic and lumbar segments and pain in the lower limbs seem to be associated with a positive response to neural stimulation. No significant adverse effects were reported in these studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain in SCI is disabling and resistant to common pharmacologic approaches. Electrical and magnetic neural stimulation techniques have been developed to offer a potential tool in the management of these patients. Although some of these techniques are associated with large standardized mean differences to reduce pain, we found an important variability in these results across studies. There is a clear need for the development of methods to decrease treatment variability and increase response to neural stimulation for pain treatment. We discuss potential methods such as neuroimaging or EEG-guided neural stimulation and the development of better surrogate markers of response such as TMS-indexed cortical plasticity.
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is frequent in persons living with spinal cord injury (SCI). Conventionally, the pain is treated pharmacologically, yet long-term pain medication is often refractory and associated with side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions are frequently advocated, although the benefit and harm profiles of these treatments are not well established, in part because of methodological weaknesses of available studies.
OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise and synthesise available research evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain in people living with SCI.
SEARCH METHODS: The search was run on the 1st March 2011. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), four other databases and clinical trials registers. In addition, we manually searched the proceedings of three major scientific conferences on SCI. We updated this search in November 2014 but these results have not yet been incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any intervention not involving intake of medication or other active substances to treat chronic pain in people with SCI.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. The primary outcome was any measure of pain intensity or pain relief. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, anxiety, depression and quality of life. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to calculate standardised mean differences for each type of intervention.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 trials involving a total of 616 participants. Eight different types of interventions were studied. Eight trials investigated the effects of electrical brain stimulation (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES); five trials) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS; three trials). Interventions in the remaining studies included exercise programmes (three trials); acupuncture (two trials); self-hypnosis (one trial); transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (one trial); and a cognitive behavioural programme (one trial). None of the included trials were considered to have low overall risk of bias. Twelve studies had high overall risk of bias, and in four studies risk of bias was unclear. The overall quality of the included studies was weak. Their validity was impaired by methodological weaknesses such as inappropriate choice of control groups. An additional search in November 2014 identified more recent studies that will be included in an update of this review.
For tDCS the pooled mean difference between intervention and control groups in pain scores on an 11-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-10) was a reduction of -1.90 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.48 to -0.33; P value 0.02) in the short term and of -1.87 (95% CI -3.30 to -0.45; P value 0.01) in the mid term. Exercise programmes led to mean reductions in chronic shoulder pain of -1.9 score points for the Short Form (SF)-36 item for pain experience (95% CI -3.4 to -0.4; P value 0.01) and -2.8 pain VAS units (95% CI -3.77 to -1.83; P value < 0.00001); this represented the largest observed treatment effects in the included studies. Trials using rTMS, CES, acupuncture, self-hypnosis, TENS or a cognitive behavioural programme provided no evidence that these interventions reduce chronic pain. Ten trials examined study endpoints other than pain, including anxiety, depression and quality of life, but available data were too scarce for firm conclusions to be drawn. In four trials no side effects were reported with study interventions. Five trials reported transient mild side effects. Overall, a paucity of evidence was found on any serious or long-lasting side effects of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to suggest that non-pharmacological treatments are effective in reducing chronic pain in people living with SCI. The benefits and harms of commonly used non-pharmacological pain treatments should be investigated in randomised controlled trials with adequate sample size and study methodology.
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.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
