ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Distinct resting state neural activity in chronic pain patients who respond to transcranial electric stimulation for pain relief.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05099406 (Brain and Pain), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Brain and Pain (BaP): Understanding the Central Mechanisms of Pain to Improve Management of Patients With Refractory Chronic Pain
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Transcranial electric stimulation (tES) techniques have shown promising results for pain relief in chronic pain. However, little is known about the mechanisms by which these non-invasive neuromodulation techniques produce analgesic effects. Besides, previous studies underscore the need to identify profiles of patients with a better response to tES. Methods: In this randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05099406), we studied whether tES modulate brain oscillatory activity by recording resting state EEG (eyes open) from 106 chronic pain patients before and after a 15-day home-based intervention with either transcranial direct or alternate current stimulation, or sham stimulation. Power spectral density (PSD) at rest was analyzed in the theta, alpha, and beta frequency bands, in two 2 × 2 designs with the factor time (pre vs. post intervention session) and group, with each active tES condition being compared against the sham stimulation. Additionally, we compared responders vs non-responders to active tES (according to their reported pain relief after the intervention) in the same PSD indices. Results: The analysis showed that the intervention had no significant effects on PSD in any band, and thus revealed that understanding the physiological mechanisms of the analgesic effects of tES remains a pending matter. However, higher PSD in the theta band was observed for responders compared to non-responders regardless of the assessment session. Discussion: This finding suggests that the theta-band oscillatory activity of patients with chronic pain could be a promising prognostic biomarker for the effectiveness of tES and opens a new avenue for individualizing tES interventions.
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.