Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37596980›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2023

Beyond trial-and-error: Individualizing therapeutic transcranial neuromodulation for chronic pain.

Daniel Ciampi de Andrade, Luís García-Larrea

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of pain (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
15.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Alpha oscillations in pain neuromodulation: From resting rhythms to reactive networks.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Article
  4. Clinical utility and prospective of TMS-EEG: Updated review from an international expert group.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Central neuropathic pain.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel Ciampi de AndradeDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3411-632X
Luís García-LarreaUniversity Hospital Pain Center (CETD), Neurological Hospital P. Wertheimer, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Aalborg University · DKUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

European Research Council 101087925
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the motor cortex provides supplementary relief for some individuals with chronic pain who are refractory to pharmacological treatment. As rTMS slowly enters treatment guidelines for pain relief, its starts to be confronted with challenges long known to pharmacological approaches: efficacy at the group-level does not grant pain relief for a particular patient. In this review, we present and discuss a series of ongoing attempts to overcome this therapeutic challenge in a personalized medicine framework. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Relevant scientific publications published in main databases such as PubMed and EMBASE from inception until March 2023 were systematically assessed, as well as a wide number of studies dedicated to the exploration of the mechanistic grounds of rTMS analgesic effects in humans, primates and rodents.

resultsThe main strategies reported to personalize cortical neuromodulation are: (i) the use of rTMS to predict individual response to implanted motor cortex stimulation; (ii) modifications of motor cortex stimulation patterns; (iii) stimulation of extra-motor targets; (iv) assessment of individual cortical networks and rhythms to personalize treatment; (v) deep sensory phenotyping; (vi) personalization of location, precision and intensity of motor rTMS. All approaches except (i) have so far low or moderate levels of evidence.

conclusionsAlthough current evidence for most strategies under study remains at best moderate, the multiple mechanisms set up by cortical stimulation are an advantage over single-target 'clean' drugs, as they can influence multiple pathophysiologic paths and offer multiple possibilities of individualization. SIGNIFICANCE: Non-invasive neuromodulation is on the verge of personalised medicine. Strategies ranging from integration of detailed clinical phenotyping into treatment design to advanced patient neurophysiological characterisation are being actively explored and creating a framework for actual individualisation of care.

Indexed as

Chronic PainMotor CortexAnimalsDatabases, FactualHumansPain ManagementTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37596980
PMCPMC7616049
OpenAlexW4386009509

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.