ReviewJournal of pain research2024
The Efficacy of Neuromodulation Interventions for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- The Missing Link: Integrating Interventional Pain Management in the Era of Multimodal Oncology.Pain and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the efficacy and safety of a neuromodulation intervention regimen in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Patients and Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in seven English databases. Randomized controlled trials of all neuromodulation interventions (both invasive and non-invasive) for the treatment of CIPN were selected. Group comparisons of differences between interventions and controls were also made. We divided the outcomes into immediate-term effect (≤3 weeks), short-term effect (3 weeks to ≤3 months), and long-term effect (>3 months). Results: Sixteen studies and 946 patients with CIPN were included. Among immediate-term effects, neuromodulation interventions were superior to usual care for improving pain (SMD=-0.77, 95% CI -1.07~ 0.47), FACT-Ntx (MD = 5.35, 95% CI 2.84~ 7.87), and QOL (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI 0.09~ 0.79) (moderate certainty); neuromodulation loaded with usual care was superior to usual care for improving pain (SMD=-0.47, 95% CI -0.71 ~ -0.23), and QOL (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 ~ 0.69) (moderate certainty). There were no statistically significant differences between the neuromodulation interventions regimen vs usual care in short- and long-term outcomes and neuromodulation vs sham stimulation from any outcome measure. There were mild adverse events such as pain at the site of stimulation and bruising, and no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Neuromodulation interventions had significant immediate-term efficacy in CIPN but had not been shown to be superior to sham stimulation; short-term and long-term efficacy could not be determined because there were too few original RCTs. Moreover, there are no serious adverse effects of this therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.