SynthesisPain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2025
Deep brain stimulation and motor cortex stimulation for central post-stroke pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of adjunctive herbal medicine in the management of post-stroke thalamic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Pain Medicine Specialist: Championing High-Quality Development for Neuromodulation Technology.Current medical science · 2026Review
- Postherpetic Neuralgia: Mechanisms, Risk Factors, and Stratified Management-A Narrative Review.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Review
- [Central invasive neuromodulation for the treatment of chronic pain : Epidural motor cortex stimulation and deep brain stimulation].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Neuromodulation approaches and applications in the management of post-stroke pain: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDeep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) are invasive interventions in order to treat various neuropathic pain syndromes such as central post-stroke pain (CPSP). While each treatment has varying degree of success, comparative analysis has not yet been performed, and the success rates of these techniques using validated, objective pain scores have not been synthesized.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Three databases were searched, and articles published from January 2000 to October 2024 were included (last search date October 25, 2024). Meta-Analysis was performed using random effects models. We evaluated the performance of DBS or MCS by assessing studies that reported pain relief using visual analogue scale (VAS) or numerical rating scale (NRS) scores.
resultsOf the 478 articles identified, 32 were included in the analysis (330 patients-139 DBS and 191 MCS). The improvement in mean VAS score for patients that underwent DBS post-surgery was 48.6% compared to a score of 53.1% for patients that had MCS. The pooled number of patients who improved after DBS was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.51-0.71, I2 = 16%). The pooled number of patients who improved after MCS was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.53-0.74, I2 = 40%).
conclusionThe use of neurosurgical interventions such as DBS and MCS are last-resort treatments for CPSP, with limited studies exploring and comparing these two techniques. While our study shows that MCS might be a slightly better treatment option, further research would need to be done to determine the appropriate surgical intervention in the treatment of CPSP.
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.