Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40338487›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2025

Neuromodulation in Chronic Migraine: Evidence and Recommendations from the GRADE Framework.

Claudio Tana, David Garcia-Azorin, Bianca Raffaelli, Mira Pauline Fitzek, Marta Waliszewska-Prosół, Sonia Quintas, Paolo Martelletti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Non-invasive brain stimulation for neuropathic orofacial pain: a mini-review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  6. 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

7 authors.

Claudio TanaCenter of Excellence on Headache and Geriatrics Clinic, Study of Rare Disorders, University-Hospital of Chieti, Chieti, Italy. claudio.tana@yahoo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9162-7866
David Garcia-AzorinHeadache Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario Río Hortega de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3132-1064
Bianca RaffaelliDepartment of Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9758-1494
Mira Pauline FitzekDepartment of Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0299-4830
Marta Waliszewska-ProsółDepartment of Neurology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9074-2803
Sonia QuintasHeadache Unit, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0622-8228
Paolo MartellettiSchool of Health, Unitelma Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6556-4128

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic migraine (CM) affects approximately 2% of the general population and is defined by the persistence of migraine symptoms for at least 15 days per month for at least 3 months. CM is often refractory to common drug treatments and is associated with a significant burden in functions of daily life during ictal phases, productivity loss, and direct costs. Modulation of pain is considered pivotal to reduce its impact and to improve the quality of life among patients with CM. In recent years, neuromodulation in CM has received growing attention; however, there remains no consensus regarding the effectiveness and safety of these procedures. Previous invasive methods such as occipital nerve neurolysis and interruption of the trigeminal dorsal root are not indicated due to high rates of relapsing pain and frequent procedural complications. Although emerging neuromodulation methods, both noninvasive, such as vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REM), and invasive, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), and high-frequency 10-Hz spinal cord stimulation (HF-10 SNS) have demonstrated promising outcomes in early clinical trials, their use has yet to be integrated into routine clinical practice. In this review, study evidence and strength of recommendations are assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Other conditions such as therapeutic risk/benefit, direct and indirect costs, use of resources, and patient/clinician preferences are also evaluated.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyMigraine DisordersChronic DiseaseDeep Brain StimulationHumansQuality of LifeSpinal Cord StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationVagus Nerve StimulationGRADEMigraineNeuromodulationRemote electrical neuromodulationStimulationVagus nerve

Identifiers

PMID40338487
PMCPMC12182506

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.