ArticleBMJ open2025
Dosage and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation for managing patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects and Mechanisms of Wrist-Ankle Acupuncture on Inflammatory Pain in the Rat Gastrocnemius Muscle.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough emerging evidence supports the short-term efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), including repetitive TMS (rTMS) and theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation (TBS-TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for managing patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP), their clinical utility in managing CMP remains inconclusive. This uncertainty may arise from methodological limitations, including heterogeneity in treatment parameters such as stimulation targets and dosages. Additionally, safety profiles for these non-invasive brain stimulation interventions in patients with CMP remain insufficiently reported, with limited data on adverse events, cumulative risks and long-term safety outcomes. Hence, in this scoping review protocol, we aim to systematically (1) identify and map the stimulation targets and dosages of TMS and tDCS used in previous studies to treat patients with CMP; (2) summarise the rationale for using the stimulation targets and dosages of TMS and tDCS; and (3) summarise the reports on the safety of TMS and tDCS in managing patients with CMP, including whether safety was reported and how it was described. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will adopt Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and report findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Two authors will independently screen articles and extract data from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase, including publications from inception to 1 August 2025. Discrepancies regarding study inclusion will be resolved through consultation with a third author. We will synthesise results using descriptive statistical methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through presentation at national or international conferences and peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: Open Science Framework (Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8HFBZ).
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.