| Title |
Non-invasive brain stimulation in chronic orofacial pain: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s168705 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alberto Herrero Babiloni, Samuel Guay, Donald R Nixdorf, Louis de Beaumont, Gilles Lavigne |
| Abstract |
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being explored as therapeutic alternatives for the management of various chronic pain conditions. The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of TMS and tDCS in reducing clinical pain intensity in chronic orofacial pain (OFP) disorders. The secondary objectives are to describe adverse effects, duration of relief, and TMS/tDCS methodologies used in chronic OFP disorders. A search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were 1) population: adults diagnosed with chronic OFP including neuropathic and non-neuropathic disorders; 2) intervention: active TMS or tDCS stimulation regardless of the used protocol; 3) comparison: sham TMS or tDCS stimulation; and 4) outcome: primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were duration of pain relief, adverse effects, and methodological parameters. Risk of bias and quality of study reporting were also assessed. A total of 556 individual citations were identified by the search strategy, with 14 articles meeting selection criteria (TMS=11; tDCS=3). Data were obtained for a total of 228 patients. Included OFP disorders were trigeminal neuralgia, trigeminal neuropathy, burning mouth syndrome, atypical facial pain, and temporomandibular disorders. Significant pain reductions were obtained in both techniques. More number of sessions yielded to more durable effects. Overall, high risk of bias and poor study quality were found. TMS and tDCS appear to be safe and promising alternatives to reduce pain intensity in different chronic OFP disorders. Additional research effort is needed to reduce bias, improve quality, and characterize optimal brain stimulation parameters to promote their efficacy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Egypt | 1 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 36 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 42 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,658,588
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#482
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,832
of 342,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#14
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.